Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et.al.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-00553
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Spin Master v. Chakaruna4169, Judge Cronan lifted the stay and ordered plaintiffs to report on efforts to obtain defendants’ addresses.
The plaintiffs, Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited, must report on efforts to obtain and verify the defendants’ addresses. The stay no longer pauses the case, affecting all parties.
What happened
In Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et al., the court had paused the case while an appeal in a related case was pending. The Second Circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction on May 3, 2023.
The court lifted the stay. It ordered the plaintiffs to submit a sworn declaration by May 26, 2023, stating whether they had sought the defendants’ addresses through discovery from a third-party service provider or another party, and whether they obtained any addresses.
Judge John P. Cronan also directed the plaintiffs to describe any efforts to verify obtained addresses and the results. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et.al. · No. 1:22-cv-00553
- John Cronan
- May 11, 2023
Background
On December 22, 2022, the Court stayed the case while an appeal in a related proceeding, Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-Us, was pending before the Second Circuit. On May 3, 2023, the Second Circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Order
Because the appeal had been dismissed, the Court lifted the stay in this case. The Court ordered the plaintiffs to inform it, by May 26, 2023, through a sworn declaration, whether they had sought addresses for the defendants through discovery from a third-party service provider covered by the Court’s preliminary-injunction order or from any other party, and whether they had obtained those addresses.
If the plaintiffs obtained addresses, the Court also ordered them to report any further efforts to verify the addresses and the results of those efforts.
Effect
The order resumed the case and required a factual report from the plaintiffs. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.