Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations…
Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lead Creation v. Hangzhou Yueji, Judge Furman denied reconsideration and a second restraining-order motion, while extending the service deadline.
Lead Creation Inc. and the defendants identified in the opinion, including Hangzhou Yueji E-Commerce Co., Ltd., were affected. Lead Creation’s two motions were denied, while its deadline to serve the defendants was extended.
What happened
Lead Creation Inc. asked the Southern District of New York to reconsider an earlier order that refused to consider its request for a temporary restraining order without first notifying the defendants. Lead Creation also filed a second request for that order.
The court denied reconsideration because Lead Creation offered arguments and allegations it could have presented earlier and identified no valid reason to revisit the ruling. The court also denied the second temporary-restraining-order request as unnecessary because the first request remained pending after notice to the defendants.
Judge Jesse M. Furman extended Lead Creation’s deadline to serve the case papers and the court’s earlier order until December 21, 2022, and required proof of service by December 23, 2022. The court directed the clerk to close the two denied motions.
The detailed version
- Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations… · No. 1:22-cv-10377
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 20, 2022
Background
On December 16, 2022, the court denied Lead Creation Inc.’s motion for a temporary restraining order to the extent that Lead Creation sought to proceed without giving the defendants notice. The court had reserved the original temporary-restraining-order motion for consideration after the defendants received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
On December 19, Lead Creation moved for reconsideration and filed another temporary-restraining-order motion. Lead Creation’s reconsideration motion offered allegations and arguments that it could have presented earlier.
Rulings
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It stated that Lead Creation had presented no valid grounds for reconsideration and explained that reconsideration is generally unavailable for relitigating old issues, presenting new theories, or seeking another opportunity to make the same case.
The court also denied the second temporary-restraining-order motion as superfluous. The original temporary-restraining-order motion remained the operative motion and remained under advisement.
Service deadline
The court extended Lead Creation’s deadline to serve the summons, complaint, operative temporary-restraining-order motion and supporting papers, and a copy of the December 16 order until December 21, 2022. Lead Creation was also directed to serve the amended complaint and a copy of this order by that date, and to file proof of service by December 23, 2022. The clerk was directed to terminate the docket entries for the second temporary-restraining-order motion and the reconsideration motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.