Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2024

XYZ Corp. v. Individuals

Full caption

XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:24-cv-01962
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, Judge Schofield granted part of the application, denied part, adjourned the hearing, denied email service, and approved student appearance.

Who this affects

XYZ Corp., the defendants identified in the case, and law student Rachel Mihlstin. The order also continued restraints affecting defendants’ online seller accounts through April 15, 2024.

What happened

In XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, XYZ Corp. sued defendants identified in the case over alleged copyright infringement involving products sold through online storefronts. The court had scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing for April 3, 2024, and had entered a temporary restraining order affecting defendants’ online seller accounts.

XYZ Corp. asked to postpone the hearing because it had only recently received information about defendants and had not yet served the defendants or identified certain financial institutions. It also asked to serve some defendants by registered email and to allow law student Rachel Mihlstin to appear with supervising counsel.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application in part and denied it in part. She moved the hearing to April 17, extended the temporary restraints through April 15, denied the email-service request without prejudice, and granted permission for Mihlstin to appear with an attorney admitted to the court.

The detailed version

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

Case
XYZ Corp. v. Individuals · No. 1:24-cv-01962
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Apr. 1, 2024

Background

XYZ Corp. brought a copyright-infringement action against defendants identified on Schedule A to the complaint. According to the application, the defendants allegedly sold products through online storefronts. The court had entered a temporary restraining order on March 18, 2024, and the order required Etsy, Inc., and financial institutions to restrain defendants’ online seller accounts. The court had set a preliminary-injunction hearing for April 3, 2024.

XYZ Corp.’s counsel stated that Etsy provided some defendant contact information only on approximately March 28, 2024, and had not yet provided all information required by the temporary restraining order, including information about defendants’ connected financial accounts. Counsel also stated that the defendants had not been served with the temporary restraining order.

Requests

XYZ Corp. asked the court to adjourn the preliminary-injunction hearing to April 17, require defendants seeking to modify or dissolve the temporary restraining order to provide notice by April 12, and set April 15 as the deadline for opposing papers.

XYZ Corp. also requested permission to serve certain defendants by registered email. The application discussed defendants located in the United States and in countries that are members of the Hague Convention on the Service of Process Abroad. It argued that email service would be practical because defendants had multiple addresses and the hearing schedule was short. The application further argued that the defendants’ email addresses were connected to their online storefronts and were used for communications, orders, payments, and account information.

Finally, XYZ Corp. requested permission for Rachel Mihlstin, a third-year law student working with plaintiff’s counsel as an extern, to appear under the Southern District of New York’s Plan for Student Practice in Civil Actions.

Ruling

The court stated: “Application GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.” Judge Lorna G. Schofield adjourned the preliminary-injunction hearing until April 17, 2024, at 4:20 p.m. Any defendant seeking to modify or dissolve the temporary restraining order had to serve notice by April 12, 2024, and opposing papers had to be filed by April 15, 2024. The restraints imposed by the March 18, 2024 order were extended through April 15, 2024.

The court denied XYZ Corp.’s request to serve defendants by email without prejudice. The court stated that XYZ Corp. could resubmit the request with a showing that email service complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is either authorized by an international agreement or not prohibited by one.

The court granted XYZ Corp.’s request for a law-student appearance. Mihlstin was required to be accompanied at proceedings by an attorney admitted to the court, consistent with the Plan for Student Practice in Civil Actions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.