A federal district court judge for the Northern District of Illinois was unamused with a plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). The Plaintiff wanted to stop alleged trademark infringement for a puzzle with “an elf-like creature embracing the head of a unicorn on a beach” and a phone case featuring “a unicorn running beneath a castle lit by a full moon.”
The plaintiff demanded a hearing despite COVID-19 outbreak
The court denied the plaintiff’s request for a TRO, along with their request for a full hearing. It said, “This Court thought that it was a bad time to hold a hearing on the motion.”
The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that they would suffer an irreparable injury (the standard for a temporary restraining order) from waiting a few weeks to hold a hearing in the normal course of the court’s schedule.
The court found that “at worst, [the] Defendants might sell a few more counterfeit products in the meantime.” Connecting the frivolity of the plaintiff’s request with the gravity of the global coronavirus outbreak, the court mused, “One wonders if the fake fantasy products are experiencing brisk sales as the moment.”
Also, the court noted that conducting a hearing on the plaintiff’s TRO request would consume time and valuable resources for both the court and other non-parties to the suit. The plaintiff had requested an order forcing “innocent third parties,” like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Google to “spring into action within two or three days.”
The court spells it out for the plaintiff
In response, the court found that proceeding to a hearing would “distract people who may have bigger problems on their hands right now.” Apparently, this was not the first time during the outbreak that the plaintiff’s attempts to utilize court resources were rebuffed.
This order was on a motion to reconsider the previous denial of the same request on the same grounds. The plaintiff completely failed to demonstrate any ability to read the attitude of the court.
In response, the plaintiff filed an “emergency” motion to re-consider asking that the court re-think its scheduling order. They requested a hearing within the week.
The court criticized the plaintiff for characterizing the request as an “emergency,” particularly given the limited resources of the court. It noted that “resources are stretched thin and time is at a premium. If there’s ever a time when emergency motions should be limited to genuine emergencies, now’s the time.”
The plaintiff also scheduled the motion on a date that had been “blocked off on the Court’s calendar” for several weeks.
Judge criticizes the plaintiff’s lawyers for their clients’ actions
Judge Steven Seeger then offered criticism of the plaintiff’s attorneys. He said they failed to advise their client to stand down given the unprecedented current events. He called on the words of Elihu Root: “About half of the practice of a decent lawyer is telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.”
I rarely find myself in favor of advising a client to stop pushing forward. However, Judge Seeger sums up the situation perfectly: “The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.”
Schedule Your Free Consultation Today