B2B Rocket, LLC v. Kalendar Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-01063
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
B2B Rocket v. Kalendar: Judge Subramanian denied Kalendar’s preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice because expedited discovery was needed first.
Kalendar Inc.’s preliminary-injunction motion was denied without prejudice; the parties must proceed with expedited discovery before any renewed motion is considered.
What happened
In B2B Rocket, LLC and Noah Loul v. Kalendar, Inc., Kalendar filed a motion asking for a preliminary injunction. The parties agreed that discovery was needed before the court could resolve such a motion.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because it was filed before the agreed-upon discovery and did not address what the factual record would show. The court said Kalendar could file the motion again after expedited discovery.
Judge Subramanian set deadlines for a renewed motion, responses, and a reply, and scheduled a hearing. The court also directed Kalendar to follow the court’s rules for sealing and redacting sensitive information and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF Nos. 34 and 36.
The detailed version
- B2B Rocket, LLC v. Kalendar Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01063
- Subramanian
- May 1, 2024
Background
The opinion concerns Kalendar Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The provided text also includes a joint letter describing the procedural history and the parties’ positions about a later-filed related action, discovery, and where the injunction motion should proceed.
The court had previously denied an earlier preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice and required the parties to discuss a schedule. After B2B Rocket and Noah Loul filed an amended complaint, Kalendar filed a motion to dismiss and a separate action asserting claims that the joint letter describes as substantially similar to its earlier counterclaims. The opinion does not state that the court resolved the motion to dismiss or decided the parties’ disputes about the separate action.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that both sides agreed discovery was needed to resolve a motion for injunctive relief. Although the schedule contemplated filing the motion before discovery, the court concluded that doing so did not make sense. It described Kalendar’s motion as deficient and explained that, because the motion preceded the discovery that Kalendar agreed would be needed, the motion failed to address what the factual record would show.
The court therefore concluded that the motion should be re-filed after expedited discovery. It stated that a delay of about one month was not significant. The opinion does not decide whether Kalendar ultimately satisfies the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief.
Order
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice. Kalendar may file its motion on May 31, 2024; any response is due by June 14, 2024; and a reply may be submitted by June 21, 2024. Judge Arun Subramanian scheduled a hearing for June 27, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. The court advised that any renewed motion must address the proper standards for preliminary injunctive relief, explain why the facts and law support relief, comply with the court’s individual practices concerning sealing and redactions, and provide the plaintiff and the court with unredacted copies of filings. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF Nos. 34 and 36.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.