CAI v. CHAOZHOUSHI YITONG DIANZI SHANGWU YOUXIANGONGSI US (2026)

Order

Plaintiff Shaoyun Cai (“Cai”) moved to file under seal, requested alternative service, and moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendant Chaozhoushi Yitong Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi. The TRO was granted in part and denied in part, and the expedited discovery and alternative service requests were granted. See ECF No. 13 (“TRO Order”).

On July 6, 2026, Cai moved to extend the TRO by 14 days. See ECF No. 15. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2), the Court did not find good cause to extend the TRO. See ECF No. 17. The Court made the TRO “effective upon receipt of [a $5,000 bond] and service of the complaint and this Order on Defendant.” TRO Order at p. 17. When the first denial without prejudice of an extension of the TRO was entered, however, nothing in the record established that Plaintiff deposited the required bond or that Plaintiff had served Defendant. The Clerk's Office had previously issued the summons to Cai, however, making service possible. See ECF No. 16.

So, even though the TRO was set to expire on July 10, 2026, see TRO Order at 17 (“The TRO shall expire fourteen calendar days from the date this order is entered.”), the TRO never took effect. As stated before, the Court will not extend the effectiveness of an order that never became effective. See ECF No. 17.

Plaintiff has re-urged her motion to extend the TRO. See ECF No. 19. While she offers evidence gleaned from expedited discovery demonstrating significant sales of allegedly infringing products and has secured the required bond, Plaintiff did not allege that she had served Defendant notice of the TRO—a stated prerequisite for making the TRO effective. TRO Order at p. 17 (“effective upon receipt of [a $5,000 bond] and service of the complaint and this Order on Defendant”).

Treating her newest motion as a renewed motion for a TRO—and for the reasons set forth above and in the Court's previous TRO Order (ECF No. 13)—the Court GRANTS Plaintiff the relief detailed in the Court's previous order, see ECF No. 13, with one key amendment: the addition of equitable relief in the form of a limited asset freeze on Defendant's one identified Amazon seller account. Given that Plaintiff has already secured the requisite $5,000 bond, this TRO will become effective upon service to Defendant.

Asset Freeze

Through expedited discovery, Plaintiff has proffered evidence of sizeable sales through Amazon's online marketplace that relate to the copyrights at issue in this case. Here, on one online platform, Defendant has grossed $641,077.99 from 15,136 individual unit sales of 11 different allegedly infringing products over an unspecified time period. ECF No. 19 at pp. 4–5. Defendant's U.S. Amazon account held a balance of $1,092.69 when Plaintiff submitted her most recent motion to the Court. Id. at p. 3. Given the high volume of sales, the amount of money in the account, and the direct connection between this Amazon account and the allegedly infringing sales, the Court finds it appropriate to render a limited freeze of this one, singular Amazon account. See, e.g., Prep Sols., Ltd. v. Leicht, No. 2:22-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 1812298, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2022) (freezing only individual PayPal accounts and identifying them by number).

Such a “limited asset freeze” is appropriate under these circumstances. Animale Grp. Inc. v. Sunny's Perfume Inc., 256 F. App'x 707, 709 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). After all, “[t]he general federal rule of equity is that a court may not reach a defendant's assets unrelated to the underlying litigation and freeze them so that they may be preserved to satisfy a potential money judgment.” In re Fredeman Litig., 843 F.2d 821, 825 (5th Cir. 1988).

Conclusion

1. The application for a TRO is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See ECF No. 7-0.

a. Under Rule 65(c), the Court “may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c).

i. The Court finds that a $5,000 bond would be appropriate.

ii. Here, the Court finds the amount of $5,000 to satisfy any damages from wrongful restraint. See also Phillips v. Charles Schreiner Bank, 894 F.2d 127, 131 (5th Cir. 1990) (finding reversible error in the district court's failure to follow Rule 65(c)).

b. Defendant is temporarily enjoined and restrained from infringing on Plaintiff's copyrights.

c. Defendant subject to this Order may appear and move to dissolve or modify the Order as permitted by and in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Western District of Texas.

d. Because the aforementioned funds have been received, the TRO becomes effective upon service of the complaint, this Order, and all previous written orders of the Court in this case. The TRO shall expire fourteen calendar days from the date this order is entered, regardless of the date of service.

2. All filings in this case shall be sealed until (a) Plaintiff serves on Defendant any filing in this case, or (b) 40 days from the date of this order, whichever comes first.

3. Defendant shall be temporarily restrained and enjoined from transferring, disposing of, encumbering, or secreting any assets in its U.S. Amazon account, identified by the following external seller identification number: A1KWDYE0U2MHQK.

a. Defendant may, upon motion and a showing satisfactory to the Court, seek to have specific assets released from this freeze by demonstrating that such assets are not derived from or related to the alleged infringement at issue in this case.

Andrew Davis, United States District Judge