Ma v. Individuals
Hairu Ma v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10784
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hairu Ma v. Individuals, Judge Furman ordered a conference about jurisdiction and Hairu Ma’s request for emergency relief.
Hairu Ma and the individuals, corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and unincorporated associations identified on Schedule A.
What happened
In Hairu Ma v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, Hairu Ma filed a complaint, a request to keep the case under seal, and a request for an emergency temporary restraining order without notifying the defendants.
The court ordered Hairu Ma to attend a telephone conference on January 4, 2023. The conference would address whether the complaint adequately showed that the court had authority over the defendants, whether emergency relief without notice was justified by an immediate and irreparable injury, and whether Hairu Ma was likely to succeed on the legal claims.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide those issues in this order. He set the conference and provided instructions for joining it and for counsel to identify the people who might speak during the call.
The detailed version
- Ma v. Individuals · No. 1:22-cv-10784
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 27, 2022
Background
On December 21, 2022, Hairu Ma filed a complaint, a motion for permission to file the case under seal, and an emergency request for a temporary restraining order without notice to the defendants. The case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman on December 23, 2022.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Hairu Ma to appear for a telephone conference on January 4, 2023, at 3:15 p.m. The court directed Hairu Ma to be prepared to discuss three issues:
- Whether the complaint’s allegations were sufficient for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction, meaning authority over the defendants. - Whether there was a basis for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice to the defendants, including whether Hairu Ma had shown an immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage. - Whether Hairu Ma had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, meaning a reasonable chance of prevailing on the underlying claims.
The conference was to be held remotely by telephone under the court’s individual rules. The order also instructed counsel to follow the court’s teleconference procedures, including sending a joint email at least 24 hours before the conference identifying counsel who might speak and the telephone numbers they expected to use.
Disposition and Classification
The order set a conference and identified issues for discussion. It did not grant or deny the request for a temporary restraining order, decide personal jurisdiction, or determine the likelihood of success on the merits. The order is therefore a procedural order rather than a decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.