Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 16, 2022

Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations…

Full caption

Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-10377
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Lead Creation Inc. v. Hangzhou Yueji, Judge Furman denied ex parte treatment, allowed email service, and set procedures for the unresolved temporary restraining-order request.

Who this affects

Lead Creation Inc. and the defendants identified in the caption, including Hangzhou Yueji E-Commerce Co., Ltd. The order also concerned the proper joinder of five defendants and set requirements affecting the parties’ service, briefing, and hearing participation.

What happened

In Lead Creation Inc. v. Hangzhou Yueji E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Lead Creation asked to proceed without notifying the defendants and sought other emergency relief. The court denied the request to proceed without notice because it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(A), while reserving judgment on the temporary restraining order and preliminary-injunction motions.

The court granted Lead Creation’s motion to serve the defendants by email. It ordered Lead Creation to serve the summons, complaint, temporary-restraining-order motion, supporting papers, and the order by December 19, 2022, and to file proof of service by December 21. It also set deadlines for opposition and reply papers and scheduled a January 18, 2023 hearing on the temporary-restraining-order motion.

Judge Jesse M. Furman also ordered Lead Creation to file a brief addressing whether joining the five defendants in one lawsuit was proper. The order was procedural and did not decide the temporary-restraining-order or preliminary-injunction requests, or the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations… · No. 1:22-cv-10377
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Dec. 16, 2022

Background

Lead Creation Inc. sought emergency relief against Hangzhou Yueji E-Commerce Co., Ltd. and other defendants. The opinion states that the court addressed the requests during a telephone conference. The specific underlying claims are not decided in this order.

Rulings

- Request to proceed without notice: The court denied Lead Creation’s request to proceed on an ex parte basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(A), finding that the rule’s requirements were not satisfied. The court reserved judgment on the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. - Alternative service: The court granted Lead Creation’s motion to serve the defendants by email. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the docket entry for that motion, ECF No.

  1. - Service and briefing deadlines: Lead Creation was ordered to serve the summons, complaint, temporary-restraining-order motion, supporting papers, and a copy of the order by December 19,
  2. It had to file proof of service by December 21,
  3. Any opposition to the temporary-restraining-order motion was due January 6, 2023, and any reply was due January 13,
  4. - Hearing: The court scheduled a hearing on the temporary-restraining-order motion for January 18, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. Members of the press and public could listen but could not speak. - Joinder: The court ordered Lead Creation to file a supplemental brief by December 30, 2022, addressing whether joining the five defendants in the same lawsuit was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). The order cited authority stating that allegations that unrelated parties infringed the same patent or sold similar products do not, by themselves, establish proper joinder.

Effect of the Order

The order denied only the request to proceed without notice and granted the alternative-service motion. It did not rule on the temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction and did not decide the merits of Lead Creation’s underlying claims. The case was set to proceed through service, briefing, a hearing, and further consideration of whether the defendants were properly joined.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.