Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd.

S.D. New York

Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd.

DecidedAugust 1, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-04183

StatusUnknown

This text of Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd. (Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd.) 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

Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED: □ 8/1/2025 LASHIFY, INC., : Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-4183 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER QINGDAO NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. : a/k/a QINGDAO FOLLOW THE TREND : NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. a/k/a : QINGDAO MARS CULTURE MEDIA Co., LTD : d/b/a UCOOLME and VIVICUTE LIMITED, : Defendants. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On July 18, 2025, Defendants moved for reconsideration of the Court’s bond decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Dkt. No. 47. That motion is supported by a memorandum of law, Dkt. No. 48, and the declaration of Amber Liu, Dkt. No. 49. Plaintiff opposes the motion in substance but also asserts that the motion is procedurally improper. Dkt. No. 52. The relief that Defendants seek includes modification of the terms and conditions of a preliminary injunction, which may be made at any time and may be supported by an affidavit or declaration. See Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 732 F.2d 253, 256 (2d Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the parties are ordered to show cause by August 6, 2025, why the motion at Dkt. No. 47 should not be considered under the standards for modification of a preliminary injunction. Submissions shall be no more than three single-spaced pages. Any responsive letters shall be filed no later than August 7, 2025.

SO ORDERED. wil Rtn, Dated: August 1, 2025 Se New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED: □ 8/1/2025 LASHIFY, INC., : Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-4183 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER QINGDAO NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. : a/k/a QINGDAO FOLLOW THE TREND : NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. a/k/a : QINGDAO MARS CULTURE MEDIA Co., LTD : d/b/a UCOOLME and VIVICUTE LIMITED, : Defendants. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On July 18, 2025, Defendants moved for reconsideration of the Court’s bond decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Dkt. No. 47. That motion is supported by a memorandum of law, Dkt. No. 48, and the declaration of Amber Liu, Dkt. No. 49. Plaintiff opposes the motion in substance but also asserts that the motion is procedurally improper. Dkt. No. 52. The relief that Defendants seek includes modification of the terms and conditions of a preliminary injunction, which may be made at any time and may be supported by an affidavit or declaration. See Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 732 F.2d 253, 256 (2d Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the parties are ordered to show cause by August 6, 2025, why the motion at Dkt. No. 47 should not be considered under the standards for modification of a preliminary injunction. Submissions shall be no more than three single-spaced pages. Any responsive letters shall be filed no later than August 7, 2025.

SO ORDERED. wil Rtn, Dated: August 1, 2025 Se New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lashify-inc-v-qingdao-network-technology-co-ltd-nysd-2025.