2026-cv-00570 AI分析
05/07/2026
ORDER DENYING [21] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff ELLEN LYNN NEGLEY. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint on 4/6/2026, alleging that Defendants' products are infringing on Plaintiff's copyrighted artwork. On 4/9/2026, the Court granted Plaintiff's [4] motion for a temporary restraining order, ordering the restraint of Defendants' assets and merchant storefronts, and scheduling an in-person hearing to show cause as to why preliminary injunction should not be issued to occur on 4/21/2026. One business day before the hearing, Plaintiff requested that the Court continue the hearing. ECF No. 17. The Court granted the motion, rescheduling the hearing for 5/4/2026 at 10:00 AM, in person. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff's counsel failed to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, the TRO expired according to its terms on 5/4/2026. On 5/5/2026, despite not appearing at the show cause hearing, Plaintiff filed a one-paragraph [21] Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with no accompanying brief. "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). As the Supreme Court has recognized, the limited purpose of a preliminary injunction "is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held." Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 620 U.S. 339, 346 (2024) (internal citations omitted). Four factors inform a court's decision as to the issuance of a preliminary injunction: "(1) The likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at final hearing; (2) the extent to which the plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained of; (3) the extent to which the defendant will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is issued; and (4) [that] the public interest [weighs in favor of granting the injunction]." See Greater Phila. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Phila., 949 F.3d 116, 133 (3d Cir. 2020). Stated slightly differently, "any one factor may give a district court reason enough to exercise its sound discretion by denying an injunction[,]" and "[w]hen one factor is dispositive, a district court need not consider the others" to deny an injunction. Del. State Sportsman's Assoc., Inc. v. Del. Dep't of Safety & Homeland Security, 108 F.4th 194, 203 (3d Cir. 2024).Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden here. Most notably, Plaintiff has not demonstrated irreparable harm warranting renewed injunctive relief. Once Defendants were restrained under the TRO, Defendants were on notice of this action and of Plaintiff's efforts to freeze Defendants' assets. The TRO restraining Defendants' assets expired on 5/4/2026, and Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing set to determine whether those restraints should continue. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff's irreparable-harm argument depends on the risk that Defendants will hide assets once alerted to this case, that risk has already materialized. Defendants have had notice, the restraints have lapsed, and any opportunity to move assets has already come to pass. Put differently, "the ship has sailed" on Plaintiff's request to maintain uninterrupted restraints pending resolution of this action. As the party moving for emergency relief, Plaintiff's failure to appear at the show cause hearing, or provide briefing in support of her [21] Motion for Preliminary Injunction, substantially undermines any claim that renewed emergency relief is necessary now. See Greater Phila. Chamber of Commerce, 949 F.3d at 133 (3d Cir. 2020). The remaining factors likewise do not favor issuance of preliminary injunction. The present record is limited, particularly in light of Plaintiff's failure to appear at the show cause hearing or provide briefing in support of her [21] Motion. Moreover, the balance of equities and public interest do not favor this Court's reimposition of restraints on Defendants' assets where Plaintiff has failed to appear at a hearing convened to determine whether such extraordinary relief should continue. Accordingly, Plaintiff's [21] Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 5/7/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. 翻译
05/04/2026
ORDER. On 4/9/2026, this Court granted Plaintiff's [4] motion for a temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued on 4/21/2026. ECF No. 14. On Sunday, 4/19/2026, Plaintiff requested that the Court continue the hearing. ECF No. 16. The Court granted the motion the next day, rescheduling the hearing for 5/4/2026 at 10:00 AM. ECF No. 18. The Court ordered the parties to appear in person. Id. On the date and time of the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel failed to appear. The Court waited for approximately 20 minutes after the scheduled start time of the hearing, but no party appeared. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 5/4/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. 翻译
04/20/2026
ORDER GRANTING [17] Motion to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order and to Continue the Show Cause Hearing filed by Plaintiff ELLEN LYNN NEGLEY. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Show Cause Hearing re Preliminary Injunction currently set for 4/21/2026 is RESCHEDULED to 5/4/2026 at 10:00 AM, IN PERSON in Courtroom 9B before Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Opposition papers, if any, shall be filed on or before 4/27/2026. Plaintiff shall file any Reply papers on or before 4/30/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 4/20/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. 翻译
04/19/2026
MOTION to Extend Time to April 29, 2026 by ELLEN LYNN NEGLEY. 翻译
附件：
1:Proposed Order
2:Declaration
04/07/2026
ORDER GRANTING [7] MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal filed by Plaintiff ELLEN LYNN NEGLEY. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 4/7/2026. 翻译
04/06/2026
ORDER re Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) Motions to Dismiss as more fully stated in said order. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 4/6/2026. 翻译
04/06/2026
COMPLAINT against SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTS (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $405, receipt number APAWDC-9481949), filed by ELLEN LYNN NEGLEY. 翻译
附件：
1:Civil Cover Sheet
2:Exhibit Intellectual Property Rights
3:Exhibit Registration
4:Exhibit Combatting Trafficking and Counterfeit
案件最新进展，来源于美国联邦法院，下载文件请联系 18523047090 微信同号
被告名单文件：部分原告会选择隐匿发案，或者对提交的文件进行密封处理，因此包括被告信息在内的相关文件不会在前期公开（一般PI阶段左右才会公开）。
诉状：诉状通常包括原被告的基本信息、侵权行为、侵权类型，以及诉讼请求，如确认侵权、下架侵权产品、请求赔偿等，这个文件起诉就可以下载
案件每天自动更新，未及时更新的可点击 案件名称旁边 更新 按钮
