Weng v. Does 1-35
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-07082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Judge Oetken denied a second preliminary injunction and counsel-disqualification motions; related motions were moot.
Plaintiff Weijie Weng; defense counsel Nina D. Boyajian and Justin A. MacLean; and the defendants’ motion for a conference.
What happened
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Plaintiff Weijie Weng asked for a second preliminary injunction in his copyright-infringement case. He also asked the court to disqualify defense counsel Nina D. Boyajian and Justin A. MacLean, claiming they made false statements.
The court found that the request for a second injunction offered nothing new of substance and did not show that Weng was likely to win, would suffer serious harm without an injunction, or that the other required factors favored an injunction. The court also found that Weng had not shown that defense counsel made false statements and described the disqualification request as frivolous.
Judge Oetken denied both of Weng’s motions. The motions to expedite and for a conference were moot, and the clerk was directed to close the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Weng v. Does 1-35 · No. 1:22-cv-07082
- James Oetken
- Oct. 13, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Weijie Weng moved for a second preliminary injunction in this copyright-infringement case. A preliminary injunction is an order intended to provide relief before the case is finally decided. Weng also moved to disqualify defense counsel Nina D. Boyajian and Justin A. MacLean, alleging that they made false statements to the court.
The court had denied Weng’s first set of preliminary-injunction motions on January 12, 2023.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Weng’s second preliminary-injunction motion offered nothing new of substance. It also held that Weng failed to show the requirements for preliminary relief: a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without an injunction, a favorable balance of the equities, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.
The court held that Weng’s motion to disqualify counsel did not establish that defense counsel made false statements to the court and described the motion as frivolous.
Disposition
The court denied Weng’s motions for a second preliminary injunction and for disqualification of counsel. The court stated that Weng’s motions to expedite and Defendants’ motion for a conference were moot in light of the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, and 88.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.