Jiaorong Li v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

S.D. New York

Jiaorong Li v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

DecidedOctober 23, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-07875

StatusUnknown

This text of Jiaorong Li v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Jiaorong Li v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jiaorong Li v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JIAORONG LI, Plaintiff, 1:25-cv-07875 (ALC) ~against- SEALED ORDER DENYING PARTNERSHIPS AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS RESTRAINING ORDER IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, Defendants. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: Plaintiff Jiaorong Li (“Plamtiff’) filed an ex parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), including a temporary injunction, temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery. Plaintiff moves for such preliminary relief against the e-commerce stores operating the product listings identified in Schedule A to the Complaint. Based on the papers and pleadings filed under seal, the Court DENIES the motion for procedural deficiencies. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a temporary restraining order may be granted without notice to the adverse party only if “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint . clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). In addition, Local Rule 6.1(d) states that: “No ex parte order, or order to show cause to bring on a motion, will be granted, except upon a clear and specific showing by affidavit that contains good and sufficient reasons why a procedure other than by notice of motion is necessary.” A failure to satisfy these procedural requirements renders an ex parte TRO application insufficient. See, e.g., Anatomy IT, LLC v. CyberLife Sys., Inc., No. 24-CV-2460 (KMIS), 2024 WL

1414203, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2024) (denying ex parte motion for TRO for failure to explain what injury would result from notification); FE/ Hong Kong Co. Ltd. y. GlobalFoundries, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-02342-MKV, 2020 WL 1444956, at #2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar, 25, 2020) (same); Rabbi Jacob Joseph Sch, y. Province of Mendoza, 342 F. Supp. 2d 124, 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (dissolving ex parte TRO for failure to declare what injury would result from notification). Plaintiff failed to include any affidavit or verified complaint in support of his ex parte motion fora TRO. Accordingly, he has failed to satisfy the procedural requirements for his request. See Fed. R. Civ. 65(b)\(1)(A); Lepp v. Mallet, No. 25-10214, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76954, at *11-14 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2025) (denying ex parte motion for TRO for failing to include affidavit or verified complaint). Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. The Court additionally notes that Plaintiff bas failed to identify—or provide sufficient details

to identify—the defendants. The list attached as Schedule A to the Complaint only includes links to the allegedly infringing products, not the names of the seller businesses. The provision of product links alone is insufficient, especially considering that Link 5 does not return a product and Link 6 is not accessible without an account. Accordingly, Plaintiff must file an amended Schedule A providing the names of the seller businesses in order to proceed.

SO ORDERED.

~ ANDREWL.CARTER,JRO United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JIAORONG LI, Plaintiff, 1:25-cv-07875 (ALC) ~against- SEALED ORDER DENYING PARTNERSHIPS AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS RESTRAINING ORDER IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, Defendants. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: Plaintiff Jiaorong Li (“Plamtiff’) filed an ex parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), including a temporary injunction, temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery. Plaintiff moves for such preliminary relief against the e-commerce stores operating the product listings identified in Schedule A to the Complaint. Based on the papers and pleadings filed under seal, the Court DENIES the motion for procedural deficiencies. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a temporary restraining order may be granted without notice to the adverse party only if “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint . clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). In addition, Local Rule 6.1(d) states that: “No ex parte order, or order to show cause to bring on a motion, will be granted, except upon a clear and specific showing by affidavit that contains good and sufficient reasons why a procedure other than by notice of motion is necessary.” A failure to satisfy these procedural requirements renders an ex parte TRO application insufficient. See, e.g., Anatomy IT, LLC v. CyberLife Sys., Inc., No. 24-CV-2460 (KMIS), 2024 WL

1414203, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2024) (denying ex parte motion for TRO for failure to explain what injury would result from notification); FE/ Hong Kong Co. Ltd. y. GlobalFoundries, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-02342-MKV, 2020 WL 1444956, at #2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar, 25, 2020) (same); Rabbi Jacob Joseph Sch, y. Province of Mendoza, 342 F. Supp. 2d 124, 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (dissolving ex parte TRO for failure to declare what injury would result from notification). Plaintiff failed to include any affidavit or verified complaint in support of his ex parte motion fora TRO. Accordingly, he has failed to satisfy the procedural requirements for his request. See Fed. R. Civ. 65(b)\(1)(A); Lepp v. Mallet, No. 25-10214, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76954, at *11-14 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2025) (denying ex parte motion for TRO for failing to include affidavit or verified complaint). Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. The Court additionally notes that Plaintiff bas failed to identify—or provide sufficient details

to identify—the defendants. The list attached as Schedule A to the Complaint only includes links to the allegedly infringing products, not the names of the seller businesses. The provision of product links alone is insufficient, especially considering that Link 5 does not return a product and Link 6 is not accessible without an account. Accordingly, Plaintiff must file an amended Schedule A providing the names of the seller businesses in order to proceed.

SO ORDERED.

~ ANDREWL.CARTER,JRO United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jiaorong Li v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiaorong-li-v-partnerships-and-unincorporated-associations-identified-on-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack