Chong's Produce, Inc. v. Polani Financials & Investment Corporation, a California Corporation et al

Filing 35

ORDER REGARDING 6 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND NEW DEFENDANTS. Motions due by 4/14/2014; Responses due by 4/21/2014; Motion Hearing set for 4/24/2014 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/9/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 14-00497 CW

CHONG’S PRODUCE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING
MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND NEW
DEFENDANTS

v.
SHALIMAR INDIAN & PAKISTANI
RESTAURANT, LLC, AND SHAIQ
MOHAMMAD,

(Docket No. 6)

Defendants.
________________________________/
On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff Chong’s Produce, Inc. filed

12

this action against Former Defendants Polani Financials &

13

Investment Corporation and Prabhakar Polani.

14

Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order and

15

preliminary injunction against Former Defendants.

16

denied the TRO, but set a hearing date for the motion for

17

preliminary injunction.

18

provided Plaintiff with information showing that they were not the

19

proper defendants.

20

filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) removing Former Defendants

21

and naming Defendants Shalimar Indian & Pakistani Restaurant, LLC

22

and Shaiq Mohammad.

23

served both Defendants.

24

ex parte motion to continue the preliminary injunction hearing to

25

allow Defendants adequate time to respond.

26

Court granted the motion and set the hearing for April 10, 2014.

27

Docket No. 32.

28

injunction motion against Defendants, instead choosing to rely on

Docket No. 15.

Two days later,

The Court

Former Defendants

After reviewing the information, Plaintiff

Docket No. 26.

On March 4, 2014, Plaintiff

Docket Nos. 29, 30.

Plaintiff filed an

Docket No. 31.

The

Plaintiff never filed an amended preliminary

1

the previously-filed preliminary injunction motion filed against

2

Former Defendants.

3

that a preliminary injunction might issue against them.

4

Accordingly,

5

Defendants therefore do not have proper notice

Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion is DENIED as moot

6

because the motion was filed against the Former Defendants who are

7

no longer parties to the case.

8
9

To achieve expedient resolution of this issue, Plaintiff may
follow an expedited schedule for any amended preliminary

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

injunction motion against the current Defendants.

11

file and notice an amended preliminary injunction motion

12

addressing the current Defendants, including evidence showing that

13

an injunction should issue against them, no later than April 14,

14

2014.

15

Defendants may file a response no later than April 21, 2014.

16

hearing shall be held on Plaintiff’s amended preliminary

17

injunction motion on April 24, 2014 at 2:00 PM.

18

Plaintiff may

Service shall take place no later than April 15, 2014.
A

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated:

4/9/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2