Maddry v. Luoxue

Summary

The Northern District of California denied pro se plaintiff Daniel Maddry’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and expedited relief in his copyright infringement action concerning the card game “Discernment.” The court held that requests involving expedited discovery and preservation were not appropriate subjects for the application, and that nonparty platforms could not be enjoined on the showing made. The court further found that Maddry had not demonstrated a likelihood of success because he submitted no evidence that the copyright had been registered or preregistered before filing suit, while denying the application without prejudice to a later motion for preliminary injunction.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff adequately satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)'s requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order by presenting facts concerning anticipated irreparable injury and describing efforts to provide notice or the reasons notice should not be required.
2. Plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success, or serious questions going to the merits, because he submitted no evidence that the copyright claim had been preregistered or registered before the action was filed.
3. The court denied plaintiff's request for a TRO requiring Amazon, Walmart, and eBay to remove allegedly infringing listings because those platforms were not parties, plaintiff had not named them as defendants, and the complaint did not establish a basis for binding them under Rule 65.
4. Plaintiff's requests for expedited discovery and disclosure of seller information were not appropriate subjects of the ex parte injunction application, and plaintiff had not shown good cause for expedited discovery because he had not made a prima facie showing of infringement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff satisfied the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1).
2. Whether plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief under the Winter preliminary-injunction factors.
3. Whether the court could order nonparty platforms Amazon, Walmart, and eBay to remove listings, preserve evidence, or provide information.
4. Whether plaintiff could obtain expedited discovery to identify alleged infringers and obtain seller information.
5. Whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on his copyright-infringement claim without evidence of preregistration or registration before filing suit.

Disposition

other