Chow v. 1

E.D. Louisiana

Chow v. 1

District Court, E.D. Louisiana·Decided July 25, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-00480·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

VIRGINIA S. CHOW CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-480

“DEFENDANT 1” a/k/a KAI XUAN SECTION: “P” (2) WANG, ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS Having held a preliminary injunction hearing (see R. Doc. 48), and for the reasons explained by the Court in its Order and Reasons issuing the temporary restraining order (see R. Doc. 12.), the Court finds that Plaintiff, Virginia Chow, has met the requirements for a preliminary injunction in this matter.1 As stated on the record at the preliminary injunction hearing, Plaintiff moves for injunctive relief only as to the HTX and Binance wallet addresses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a preliminary injunction is issued as follows: 1. Defendant and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, partners, successors, assigns, and all other persons or entities through which he acts or who acts in active concert or participation with Defendant, who receive actual notice of this Order and Reasons by personal service or otherwise, whether acting directly or through any trust, corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, or any of them, are hereby temporarily restrained from withdrawing, transferring, or encumbering any assets currently held in the following cryptocurrency wallet addresses: Binance: 0xc8121243a24b110a369bd15ced93d1ed1339b608 0x848c23684c817a8c4351ab903cb33b30fc8fa761

1 See FED. R. CIV. P. 65. HTX: 0x4e74dc7dbceda607ed4c019a7eal55db12111ef48

2. In the Court’s Order and Reasons granting the temporary restraining order (R. Doc. 12), the Court determined that security in the amount of $100 is appropriate. The record does not reflect that this sum has been deposited with the Court. Therefore, Ms. Chow is directed to post security of $100 with the Clerk of Court. No additional security shall be required.” 3. This preliminary injunction shall remain in effect until the Court’s entry ofa final judgment on the merits of Ms. Chow’s claims in this action unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of July 2025.

DARREL JAMES PAPILLION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 See Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 612 (Sth Cir. 1985).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

VIRGINIA S. CHOW CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-480

“DEFENDANT 1” a/k/a KAI XUAN SECTION: “P” (2) WANG, ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS Having held a preliminary injunction hearing (see R. Doc. 48), and for the reasons explained by the Court in its Order and Reasons issuing the temporary restraining order (see R. Doc. 12.), the Court finds that Plaintiff, Virginia Chow, has met the requirements for a preliminary injunction in this matter.1 As stated on the record at the preliminary injunction hearing, Plaintiff moves for injunctive relief only as to the HTX and Binance wallet addresses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a preliminary injunction is issued as follows: 1. Defendant and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, partners, successors, assigns, and all other persons or entities through which he acts or who acts in active concert or participation with Defendant, who receive actual notice of this Order and Reasons by personal service or otherwise, whether acting directly or through any trust, corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, or any of them, are hereby temporarily restrained from withdrawing, transferring, or encumbering any assets currently held in the following cryptocurrency wallet addresses: Binance: 0xc8121243a24b110a369bd15ced93d1ed1339b608 0x848c23684c817a8c4351ab903cb33b30fc8fa761

1 See FED. R. CIV. P. 65. HTX: 0x4e74dc7dbceda607ed4c019a7eal55db12111ef48

2. In the Court’s Order and Reasons granting the temporary restraining order (R. Doc. 12), the Court determined that security in the amount of $100 is appropriate. The record does not reflect that this sum has been deposited with the Court. Therefore, Ms. Chow is directed to post security of $100 with the Clerk of Court. No additional security shall be required.” 3. This preliminary injunction shall remain in effect until the Court’s entry ofa final judgment on the merits of Ms. Chow’s claims in this action unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of July 2025.

DARREL JAMES PAPILLION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 See Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 612 (Sth Cir. 1985).

Chow v. 1, (E.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Chow v. 1 (Chow v. 1) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related