TV Tokyo Corporation v. Bear Hugs et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------X TV TOKYO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, ORDER - against - 26 Civ. 4292 (NRB) BEAR HUGS et al.

Defendants. ------------------------------------X NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WHEREAS on June 23, 2026, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff’s application for entry of a preliminary injunction to follow the previously-entered temporary restraining order, which was expiring on June 9, 2026, ECF No. 21, TV Tokyo Corp. v. Bear Hugs et al., No. 26 Civ. 4292 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. 2026) (“TRO”); and WHEREAS the Court stated on the record that a preliminary injunction would not be entered because plaintiff had failed to establish that defendants -- all of whom are foreign non- domiciliaries –- “transact[] any business within the state or contract[] anywhere to supply goods or services in the state,” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301(a)(1), in that there was no proof of any “shipment” or other “transaction” with a “receipt” or “confirmation”; see also Am. Girl, LLC v. Zembrka, 118 F.4th 271, 278 (2d Cir. 2024); ZURU (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated 1 Associations Identified on Schedule A to Complaint, No. 21 Civ. 09817 (MKV), 2021 WL 5847649, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2021); and WHEREAS the Court further stated on the record that plaintiff

failed to establish that that alternative electronic service was permissible rather than Hague Convention service and further referenced the Court’s concurrence with the concerns of Judge Subramanian expressed in ECF No. 48, Those Characters from Cleveland, LLC v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 26 Civ. 2444 (S.D.N.Y. 2026) (“Far from ‘reasonable diligence,’ plaintiff appears to have done very little to locate defendants, just copying and pasting addresses into online mapping services, claiming failure where there is no exact match[.]”); and WHEREAS the Court informed plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing that the Court would stay its denial of the preliminary injunction

for 24 hours to permit plaintiff to appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction motion; and WHEREAS plaintiff has failed to appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction motion; and WHEREAS lack of personal jurisdiction is grounds for dismissal of the complaint; it is hereby ORDERED that the TRO is vacated; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff inform the “Financial Institutions” 2 listed in Paragraph 2 of the TRO, TRO QJ 2, that the “Temporary Asset Restraint,” as well as all other restraints and provisions for expedited discovery have been vacated and have no further force or effect; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff inform defendants that the TRO has been vacated and has no further force or effect; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s counsel submit a signed affidavit documenting that it has informed the Financial Institutions to lift all “Temporary Asset Restraints” and other restraints on defendants’ accounts and that defendants have been informed of the same; and it is further ORDERED that upon proof of compliance with the Court’s directions to inform the Financial Institutions and the defendants of the content and impact of this order, the case will be formally dismissed.

Dated: New York, New York _ } June 25, 2026 {7 Gp) L£— NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE