Mighty Dreams LLC v. Shenzhen Jicanghongchuangyisheji Co Ltd

[3] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [4] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [6] MIGHTY DREAMS, LLC, Case No. C25-702-RSM [7] Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY [8] v. RESTRAINING ORDER AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS [9] SCHENZHEN JICANGCHUANGYISHEJI, FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND CO., LTD., ALTERNATE SERVICE [10] Defendant. [12] I. INTRODUCTION [13] On August April 18, 2025, Plaintiff Mighty Dreams, LLC filed this case with a motion [14] seeking 1) an ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and temporary asset restraint, 2) [15] expedited discovery, and 3) alternate service by email. Dkt. #2. [16] Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant Schenzehen Jicangchuangyisheji Co., LTD., [17] have violated the Lanham Act, 15. U.S.C. § 1125(a), the Washington Consumer Protection Act, [18] and common law unfair competition, causing harm to Plaintiff through false advertising practices [19] in its chainsaw sharpener sales on Amazon.com. Dkt. #1. Filed with the TRO Motion is the [20] declaration of Salma Baig, a member of Plaintiff’s LLC, and several exhibits. Dkt. #2. [21] Plaintiff is a limited liability company in California that sells electric chainsaw [22] sharpening tools via its website and Amazon.com Marketplace. Id. at 4. Defendant is a China23 based limited company selling “virtually identical electric chainsaw sharpening tools . . . both on [24] 1 the Amazon.com platform and through its own website[.]” Id. Defendant advertises that it was founded by “Sheldon, a son of a logger” and “that its use of titanium makes its chainsaw [2] sharpener bits last 20% longer than its competitors.” Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff states that it “performed [3] a test buy of two of Defendant’s products” and “sent these products to a third-party independent [4] testing laboratory . . . to test each product.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges that these tests revealed [5] that Defendant’s products contain no titanium, though “Defendant has consistently falsely [6] advertised the presence of titanium in its products.” Id. [7] Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, stating that Defendant continues to falsely advertise its [8] company’s origins and that its products are harder than competitors due to the use of titanium. [9] Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that these practices harm Plaintiff by “deceiv[ing] customers to divert [10] them to Defendant’s products at the expense of competitors like Plaintiff.” Id. Plaintiff requests [11] a TRO, as well as a “prejudgment asset freeze” due to Defendant’s “disregard for the law and [12] [sic] propensity to conceal its identity and funnel funds to China[.]” Id. at 3. Plaintiff also [13] requests authorization to serve Defendant via email and for alternate service. Id. at 4. [14] II. DICUSSION [15] A. TRO [16] Plaintiff asks the Court to restrain Defendant’s from selling its “falsely advertised” [17] products because this “intentional, coordinated, and continuing scheme . . . is causing and will [18] continue to cause irreparable harm.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff argues that it has shown immediate and [19] irreparable harm because Defendant’s ongoing false advertisement will cause damage to Plaintiff [20] through loss of prospective customers and their “goodwill,” as well as revenue. Id. at 3 and 7. [21] Later, Plaintiff makes the case that the Court needs to immediately and without notice freeze [22] Defendant’s assets because “in the absence of this relief, it is highly likely that the Defendant [23] will transfer these financial assets overseas.” Id. at 19. Plaintiff states that this freeze will [24] 1 “preserve Plaintiff’s right to an accounting of Defendant’s profits from sales of falsely advertised products and [sic] protect against the transfer of these funds to overseas bank accounts in an [2] attempt to make Defendant judgment proof.” Id. at 18. [3] “Motions for temporary restraining orders without notice to and an opportunity to be [5] heard by the adverse party are disfavored and will rarely be granted.” LCR 65(b)(1). “The Court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its [6] attorney only if specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate [7] and irreparable injury . . . will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in [8] opposition; and the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the [9] reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). [10] The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts representing that a TRO is [11] appropriate or necessary in this case. Though Plaintiff cites to several out-of-district and circuit [12] cases where courts found a TRO to be appropriate, Plaintiff makes no argument as to how its [13] case is similar, and the Court finds those cases different and distinguishable from this case, as [14] those cases involved trademark infringements and plaintiffs who showed particular, individual [15] injuries and histories of defendants ignoring court orders and destroying evidence. Dkt. #2 at 716 8. While several of these courts found asset freezing appropriate due to the practices of overseas [17] defendants in trademark infringing and counterfeiting, the Court fails to see why this extreme [18] remedy is necessary through an ex parte TRO to ensure Plaintiff’s recovery. At this time, it [19] seems possible that Defendant’s assets in China can be located and obtained with some effort, [20] thus negating any irreparable harm from the transfer of money from one bank account to another, [21] or Defendant will stop upon learning of this case. Here, it has not been established that this is [22] not possible. Given all of the above, Plaintiff has failed to show the required immediate and [23] irreparable harm for an ex parte TRO, and the Court need not consider the other factors. [24] 1 B. Expedited Discovery This Court may authorize expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the [2] parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts [3] within the Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause” for such [4] early discovery. See, e.g., Yokohama Tire Crop. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612 , [5] 613-14 (D. Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards). [6] Plaintiff states that Defendant’s use of “third-party payment providers . . . impairs [7] Plaintiff’s ability to specifically identify Defendant’s bank or other merchant accounts in the [8] United States.” Dkt. #2 at 20. Plaintiff argues that “narrowly tailored discovery intended to [9] unmask Defendant and its financial accounts will allow Plaintiff to ensure that it has identified [10] the proper parties to this lawsuit and their associated financial accounts to prevent further [11] irreparable harm.” Id. Plaintiff requests the Court authorize expedited subpoenas to [12] “Defendant’s domain name registrar DNSPod, its web host Shopify.com, and its payment [13] providers PayPal and Amazon.com to uncover this information.” Id. [14] The Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause in seeking this relevant [15] information, it is familiar with this process in similar cases, and Defendant will not be overly [16] prejudiced by limited expedited discovery. The Court will permit expedited discovery as stated [17] below. [18] C. Alternate Service [19] Plaintiff next requests approval to serve Defendant via an email address obtained during [20] Plaintiff’s test buys of Defendant’s products. Id. at 24. Plaintiff argues that this email is valid [21] and working because Plaintiff received a response from Defendant via this address. Id. Plaintiff [22] believes that Defendant is attempting to hide its physical address and presents adequate argument [23] that service by email is permitted under the Hague Convention for Defendant located in China. [24] 1 See id. at 25-26. The Court finds that service by email is permitted under the circumstances of this case, [2] specifically where the foreign defendant resides in China and plaintiff has been unable to [3] ascertain physical addresses for service after a reasonable effort. See Keck v. Alibaba.com, Inc., [4] 2018 WL 3632160 , at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2018); Microsoft Corp. v. Gameest Int’l Network [5] Sales Co., 2017 WL 4517103 , at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2017); Chanel, Inc. v. Lin, 2010 WL 6 2557503, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2010); Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., 2007 7 WL 1140639 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2007). Plaintiff has otherwise demonstrated good cause [8] for this relief. [9] III. CONCLUSION [10] Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby [11] finds and Orders: [12] 1) Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Asset [13] Restraint, Dkt. #2, is DENIED. [14] 2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiff may obtain [15] information and documents through third-party subpoenas to: [16] a. DNSPod; [17] b. Shopify.com; [18] c. Amazon.com; and [19] d. PayPal. [20] Such information and document requests will be limited to: identities and addresses [21] (physical and email) of Defendant, complete financial records maintained by [22] Defendant’s providers, and other contact information. [23] 3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service of Process is GRANTED. Plaintiff is [24] 1 authorized to effect process on the named Defendant through Defendant’s associated email address: ezzdoo_service@outlook.com. If Plaintiff identifies additional [2] defendants, Plaintiff must move the Court to obtain further authorization for [3] alternative service. [5] DATED this 18th day of April, 2025. [6] A [8] RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE