Cao Group, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified On Schedule "A"

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the Plaintiff's motion to seal, for now the motion [3] is granted provisionally in light of the goal of asset restraint. But the motion for TRO and for electronic service [8] are denied, though without prejudice. In the argument section of the brief in support of the TRO, the Plaintiff advances mostly a generic argument that foreign-based entities will fraudulently transfer assets. R. 9 at 14. But that generic argument is insufficient to meet the demands of Civil Rule 65(b)(1) in proceeding ex parte. The introduction section of the brief has a more-specific argument, but the argument is not persuasive: first, one defendant listing a business address in Chinese. R. 9 at 2. That is not suggestive of an attempt to hide its location. Second, the brief asserts that one defendant has almost the same business name as the co-defendant and uses the same trademark as the co-defendant. R. 9 at 2. But that too is not suggestive of a nefarious attempt to conceal their identities or locations. Indeed, the co-defendant's trademark is actually registered with the PTO. R. 9 at 2, R. 9-1, R. 4, para. 35. The Court understands that the Plaintiff had two prior cases in which defaults were entered, but that is not enough evidence to dispense with the strong presumption of adversarial litigation over ex parte litigation. The motion [10] to serve by alternative means is also denied, for similar reasons. There is insufficient specific evidence of reasonable diligence, at least so far For example, the motion does not set forth the contact information that has been acquired, and what steps have been taken to acquire more information; and if there is a physical address, does it resolve to an actual address or a fake one. The denials of both motions are without prejudice to supplying more evidence. Under-seal versions (along with public redacted ones) of the motions may be filed if appropriate, given the need for more specific evidence that will disclose the identity of the Defendants. The tracking status hearing of 10/02/2026 is reset to 10/30/2026 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the Plaintiff shall refile the motions (it the Plaintiff so chooses) by 10/23/2026 and shall file a status report by the same deadline. Emailed notice

法院批准TRO