Shenzhen Aolaibao Electronics Co. Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint

Filing 49

ORDER denying 4 Motion for TRO. For the reasons stated on the record on March 21, 2024, Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. As the Court noted on the record and reiterates here, Plaintiff's br ief and supporting materials contained numerous errors, including: (1) citations to non-existent declarations and exhibits; (2) citations to declarations from another case in an unrelated matter; (3) factual contentions with no evidentiary support; a nd (4) exhibits that contradicted factual contentions and arguments in Plaintiff's brief. These errors appear to be the result of counsel wholesale copying portions of a brief by another firm in an unrelated case. This conduct violates counsel's obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). Plaintiff's counsel is warned that any further violations of this kind will result in sanctions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 03/22/2024) (stt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHENZHEN AOLAIBAO ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Plaintiff, -againstTHE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A TO THE COMPLAINT, 24-CV-1973 (JGLC) ORDER Defendants. JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge: For the reasons stated on the record on March 21, 2024, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. As the Court noted on the record and reiterates here, Plaintiff’s brief and supporting materials contained numerous errors, including: (1) citations to non-existent declarations and exhibits; (2) citations to declarations from another case in an unrelated matter; (3) factual contentions with no evidentiary support; and (4) exhibits that contradicted factual contentions and arguments in Plaintiff’s brief. These errors appear to be the result of counsel wholesale copying portions of a brief by another firm in an unrelated case. This conduct violates counsel’s obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that any further violations of this kind will result in sanctions. Dated: March 22, 2024 New York, New York SO ORDERED. JESSICA G. L. CLARKE United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?