Crazy Forts v. Schedule A - TRO Oppn

Case 1:23-cv-20776-RAR Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2023 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CRAZY FORTS INC.,

Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No.: 1:23-CV-20776-RAR
THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS

AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIOS
IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Defendants Toys 4 USA NY, LLC (“Toys 4”) and Laltitude LLC (“Laltitude” and,
collectively, the “American Defendants” 1) move the Court on an emergency basis for
reconsideration of the Order (ECF No. 30) granting Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Extend the
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 29, the Second Order Extending TRO).
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff has repeatedly deceived the Court. Plaintiff has secured an asset freeze over
hundreds of defendants based on the bold and unequivocal statement that “All Defendants are
located in foreign jurisdictions, mostly China,” Compl. at ¶ 80. Plaintiff’s filings are riddled with
similar overbroad generalizations, treating all Defendants as indistinguishable foreign companies
that are untouchable by United States Courts. But the American Defendants are organized in New
York and California with little to no connection to Florida, let alone to the foreign jurisdictions
mentioned by Plaintiff. Because of the Temporary Restraining Order entered in this case, the
American Defendants’ domestic businesses have been paralyzed since their cash flow is dependent
1
Defendant Toys 4 USA NY, LLC is defendant No. 159 in Schedule A; Defendant Laltitude LLC
is defendant No. 146 in Schedule A.
1
on their Amazon merchant accounts, accounts which have been fully frozen pursuant to the Court’s
Temporary Restraining Order.
Rather than notify the Court that their TRO was secured based on inaccurate statements
made to the Court, Plaintiff has improperly used the TRO to extort at least one of the Defendants
into paying an outrageous settlement demand to gain immediate access to their Amazon account.
Even worse, and at issue in this motion, Plaintiff clandestinely sought a second extension of the
TRO without notifying the Court that at least two of the effected parties are not “located in foreign
jurisdictions,” without notifying the Court that the American Defendants are represented by
counsel, and without making any attempt to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)’s unambiguous
requirement to meet and confer before seeking relief from the Court. When the undersigned called
Plaintiff’s counsel, Layla Nguyen, and demanded this error be remedied, Ms. Nguyen refused to
confer and hung up the phone.
Regardless, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any record evidence supporting a finding of
good cause to further extend the TRO. While courts ordinarily will not extend a TRO more than
once before being converted into a preliminary injunction (which requires notice and an
opportunity to be heard), Rule 65 itself makes clear that a TRO can only be extended by consent
of the parties or “good cause.” Here, Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Extend the TRO (ECF No. 29),
is devoid of a shred of good cause that justifies further restraining any defendant (including but
not limited to the American Defendants) in a manner consistent with Eleventh Circuit precedent.
The Federal Rules do not authorize the indefinite enjoinment of defendants. Plaintiff
secured an injunction against the American Defendants based on demonstrably false
representations and material omissions in later filings. This alone should warrant the immediate
dissolution of the TRO. Regardless, because Plaintiff has failed to set forth any good cause
warranting the further enjoinment of the American Defendants (or any defendant, for that matter),
2
the TRO must be allowed to dissolve on March 27, 2023. Alternatively, the American Defendants
demand an immediate hearing on the TRO so they can have an opportunity to be heard, an
opportunity to which it is entitled under the Federal Rules and fundamental notions of due process. 2
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed its Complaint (ECF No. 1, “Compl.”) on February 28, 2023. The Complaint
alleged, vaguely and conclusorily, that 461 distinct defendants—listed in “Schedule A” attached
to the Complaint—were all infringing Plaintiff’s asserted unregistered copyright and trademark.
On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Ex Parte Application for Entry of a Temporary Restraining
Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order Restraining Transfer of Assets and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law (ECF No. 7) requesting, in sum and substance, that the Court grant a
temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and, upon expiration of the TRO, grant a preliminary
injunction (1) freezing all of Defendants’ assets held by Amazon (not just those limited to the
allegedly infringing product), (2) enjoining Defendants’ alleged use of the Asserted Copyrights
and Asserted Mark, and (3) prohibiting transfer of Defendants’ Seller IDs. Plaintiff’s Motion—
and, indeed, its entire Complaint—is based on the false allegation that all Defendants are foreign
2 The American Defendants will argue, inter alia, that (1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over them as Plaintiff has only included boilerplate group pled jurisdictional allegations, Compl.
¶¶ 6-7; (2) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in group pleading claims against over 450 defendants,
id. ¶¶ 125-66; (3) there are multiple misrepresentations in the Complaint, e.g., id. ¶¶ 80-81; and
(4) Plaintiff has failed to present adequate evidence to the Court in its TRO briefing. For example,
its declarant states that its investigator accessed the e-commerce stores “bearing, or suspected to
be bearing, at least one of the Crazy Forts Mark and Copyrighted Works at issue in this action
from each Defendant.” ECF No. 7-1 ¶ 16 (emphasis added). That is, while Plaintiff brought counts
for both trademark and copyright infringement against all Defendants, it concedes that it does not
have evidence of both trademark and copyright infringement against all defendants. And it is
unclear what “suspected to be bearing” means. Moreover, the so-called “evidence” Plaintiff’s
investigator gathered clearly does not include any trademark infringement as to Toys 4 (Plaintiff
has not yet provided any evidence as to Laltitude).
3
entities counterfeiting Plaintiff’s products. Compl. at ¶ 80. The Court subsequently granted
Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO on March 3, 2023.
On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed its first Motion to extend the TRO by fourteen days (ECF
No. 15). Plaintiff’s asserted reasons for extending the TRO were, in sum and substance, that
Plaintiff was then unable to serve any of the 461 defendants that Plaintiff had brought claims
against. See ECF No. 15 at 2. The Court granted Plaintiff’s first Motion to Extend the TRO on
March 8, 2023, extending the TRO by fourteen days to March 27, 2023. ECF No. 16.
On March 16, 2023, the American Defendants’ counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and
informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Toys 4 had retained them as counsel. Declaration of Andrew
Bochner (“Bochner Decl.”) ¶ 3. Attached as Exhibit A to the Bochner Declaration is a true and
correct copy of the entire email exchange between Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel,
beginning on March 16, 2023 through March 22, 2023. Bochner Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A. Plaintiff was
therefore fully aware, since at least March 16, 2023, that Toys 4 had retained counsel in this
litigation. In those communications, Defendants’ counsel made counsel for Plaintiff aware that
Toys 4’s Amazon balance had been frozen by Amazon, and the TRO had frozen all of Toys 4’s
Amazon revenues, not just the revenue generated from the allegedly infringing products. Bochner
Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that, to their knowledge, Toys 4 had sold 493 units of the
allegedly infringing product. Bochner Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that those
alleged sales amount to approximately $20,000.00. Bochner Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff’s counsel was fully
aware that this amount is drastically less than the $488,077.00 of Toys 4’s frozen revenue at
Amazon. 3 Bochner Decl. ¶ 8.
3
Toys 4’s $488,077.00 in frozen revenue was as of March 22, 2023. This amount has since
increased and continues to grow larger with each moment the TRO is in place.
4
Despite this knowledge, Plaintiff proceeded to file a second Motion to extend the TRO on
March 22, 2023, this time for an additional fourteen days. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff’s asserted
reasons for the second extension were (1) that Plaintiff was in the process of ensuring that the
third-party marketplace platforms had implemented a freeze on each defendants’ assets in
accordance with the TRO; and (2) to allow Plaintiff to serve the remaining 178 of their 461
defendants. See ECF 29 ¶¶ 6-10. Plaintiff made this second motion to extend the TRO under the
guise of “provid[ing] defendants with due process.” ECF No. 29 ¶ 12. In reality, Plaintiff made no
attempt to confer with Defendants’ counsel regarding its second request to extend the TRO and
made its request knowing full well that Toys 4’s assets—and, again, not just those generated from
allegedly infringing products—were in fact frozen by Amazon pursuant to the TRO. Bochner Decl.
¶ 5. In fact, Plaintiff improperly omitted the fact that any defendants were represented by counsel
and may have an opinion on the relief sought.
The Court granted Plaintiff’s second Motion to Extend the TRO by fourteen days on March
23, 2023 (ECF No. 30), extending the TRO and the freeze on the American Defendants’ assets
through April 10, 2023. Plaintiff’s intent is clear: maintain a TRO over all 461 defendants’ assets
for as long as possible, holding them hostage in an effort to coerce settlement payments for wholly
unsupported infringement allegations. See, e.g., ECF 21 (dismissing one defendant), 23
(dismissing three defendants), 31 (dismissing 2 defendants); Bochner Decl. Ex. A at 1-2 (offering
to dismiss one of the American Defendants for an extortionate payment of $90,000).
5
III. ARGUMENT
There are two separate and independent bases for reconsidering the Order Extending the
TRO. First, Plaintiff willfully failed to satisfy Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)’s meet and confer requirement.
Second, there is no record evidence supporting a finding of good cause warranting the extension
of the TRO. For any one of these separate and independent reasons, the Court should allow the
TRO to dissolve on March 27, 2023.
A. Plaintiff willfully failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).
Plaintiff has willfully failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)’s meet and confer
requirement. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires a party making any motion, less certain exceptions not
applicable here, to “confer (orally or in writing), or make reasonable effort to confer (orally or in
writing), with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in
a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the motion.”
Here, Plaintiff’s failure to include any 7.1(a)(3) certification dangerously implies to the
Court that no party is represented by counsel. As demonstrated by the Bochner Declaration,
Plaintiff’s counsel not only knew that at least one of the Defendants was represented by counsel,
Plaintiff’s counsel was actively conferring with those attorneys in the context of settlement
negotiations. The undersigned asked Plaintiff’s counsel why it failed to confer with the American
Defendants’ counsel regarding the relief sought in the Order Extending the TRO, but Plaintiff’s
counsel (ironically) refused to engage the American Defendants’ counsel on this issue.
Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) is no mere technical violation, it
amplifies the serious due process concerns at issue with the Court extending the TRO. Thus far
the Court has heard only one version of the facts. As evidenced by the filing of this Motion and
the fact that the American Defendants are not “foreign nationals,” the facts presented to the Court
to justify its entry of a TRO are incomplete. Plaintiff’s failure to be forthcoming with the Court on
6
these issues and seek an extension against what appeared to be hundreds of foreign entities without
ties to the United States has directly prejudiced the American Defendants. Accordingly, for this
reason alone, the Court should reconsider its Order extending the TRO.
B. TROs should only be renewed once.
Rule 65(b)(2) only allows for a single 14-day extension. See, e.g., Lei Tang v. The
Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No.
21-14431-CIV-Cannon (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2022) (“Tang I”) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(b)(2) provides for a 14-day limit for temporary restraining orders, renewable once for good
cause.”) (emphasis added).
Practically, an injunction can be extended beyond the 28-days allowed in Rule 65(b)(2)
only in two very narrow circumstances. First, a TRO can be extended by the consent of the parties.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Second, “a temporary restraining order continued without the consent of
the parties beyond the [28-day] maximum may be treated as a preliminary injunction.” Bonilla v.
Librati, No. 1:21-CV-21588-KMM, 2021 WL 9098096, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2021) (citing
Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 671 F.2d 426, 429 (11th Cir. 1982)). Under Rule 65(a)(1), however,
courts “may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” FED. R. CIV. P.
65(a)(1) (emphasis added).
A later decision by Judge Cannon in the Tang matter is instructive. As summarized in a
later Order:
The Court then extended the temporary restraining order once for an additional
fourteen days upon Plaintiff's motion [ECF No. 21], through January 18, 2022 [ECF
No. 22]. The Court declined, however, to extend the temporary restraining order
beyond that date, acknowledging the notice requirements of Rule 65 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure [ECF No. 24; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)–(b)]. On January
18, 2022, the temporary restraining order expired, and Plaintiff filed the instant
motion seeking entry of a preliminary injunction to the same effect as the temporary
restraining order [ECF No. 26]. Plaintiff provided notice to Defendants of the
Motion [ECF Nos. 34, 43, 45; see also ECF No. 19 pp. 7–8 (permitting electronic
7
service of process)].
Tang v. Individuals, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 21-
14431-CIV, 2022 WL 1664116, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2022) (“Tang II”).
Here, Plaintiff’s TRO has been in place—and Defendants’ revenues have been frozen,
revenues which, overwhelmingly, are not derived from the products at issue in this case—since
March 3, 2023. By granting Plaintiff’s second Motion for Extension of the TRO, the Court has
extended the TRO until April 10, 2023, for a total of 38 days. This is well past the 28-day limit on
the duration of a TRO. Tang I, No. 21-14431-CIV-Cannon, at 2; Payne, 2010 WL 2804860, at *1.
Allowing the TRO to exceed that limit thus improperly transforms the TRO into a preliminary
injunction. Smith, 671 F.2d at 429. This transformation is improper, as a preliminary injunction
may only be issued upon notice to the adverse parties. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1) (emphasis
added).
The Court should follow the procedure set forth in Tang II and allow the TRO to expire on
March 27, 2023 based on the expiration of 28 days.
C. There is no record evidence supporting a finding of good cause.
Even if, arguendo, Plaintiff’s second extension of the TRO did not amount to a preliminary
injunction, Rule 65(b)(2) expressly requires a finding of good cause to support any extension of
any TRO (absent consent of the parties). Here, the record is devoid of any such good cause. As
truth would have it, Plaintiff’s asserted “good cause” is a knowing misrepresentation to the Court
and does not remotely apply to Toys 4 nor Laltitude. Plaintiff asserts that it needs an extended
TRO “[i]n the interests of providing defendants with notice and an opportunity to be heard in
opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.” ECF No. 29 ¶ 10. Plaintiff is fully aware that
Defendants Toys 4 and Laltitude are on notice of the TRO as Plaintiff’s counsel was in
8
communication with Defendants’ counsel. Bochner Decl. Ex. A. Plaintiff further asserts that
Amazon “ha[s] still not responded to or fully provided the information as required by the Court’s
TRO . . . .” Id. ¶ 5. Again, Plaintiff is fully aware that Amazon has complied with the TRO and
frozen Defendants’ accounts and their respective assets held by Amazon. Id. Plaintiff’s purported
“good cause” is therefore false and, to the extent it is true as to any of the 461 defendants, it is at
least wholly inapplicable to Toys 4 and Laltitude. 4
D. The relief sought is a true emergency.
This motion is being filed on an emergency basis because, unless the TRO is lifted, the
American Defendants will not have access to their funds being held in their Amazon accounts and,
as a result, cannot fund their operations. The American Defendants request a ruling on or before
March 27, 2023, the date the TRO was set to expire.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Toys 4 USA NY, LLC and Laltitude LLC
respectfully request that the Court reconsider its Order extending the TRO and instead enter an
order dissolving the TRO immediately. To the extent the Court is inclined to maintain the TRO,
the American Defendants respectfully request an emergency hearing and an opportunity to be
heard.
Dated: March 23, 2023
4
Although some courts have extended TROs more than once in a manner that the American
Defendants would submit is procedurally improper, such cases involved the enjoined defendants
being the cause for further extensions. See, e.g., The St. Consulting Group, Inc. v. Payne, 810-CV-
01089-T-24AEP, 2010 WL 2804860, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2010) (“Good cause exists to extend
the Temporary Restraining Order through July 22, 2010 to permit the Court to hold a hearing and
issue an order on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Defendant, through her own actions,
has prevented the Court from holding the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion.”).
9
Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certification
Counsel for the movant has conferred with all parties or non-parties who may be affected
by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the
motion and has been unable to do so.
By: /s/ Yaniv Adar

Yaniv Adar, Esq.
Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) Certification
After reviewing the facts and researching applicable legal principles, I certify that this
motion in fact presents a true emergency (as opposed to a matter that may need only expedited
treatment) and requires an immediate ruling because the Court would not be able to provide
meaningful relief to a critical, non-routine issue after the expiration of seven days. I understand
that an unwarranted certification may lead to sanctions.
By: /s/ Yaniv Adar
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
By: /s/ Yaniv Adar

Yaniv Adar, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 63804
Brickell City Tower
80 SW 8 Street. Suite 1999
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 374-0440
BOCHNER IP, PLLC
Serge Krimnus, Esq.

(pro hac vice pending)
Bochner IP, PLLC
New York Bar Number 4894044
295 Madison Avenue
12th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(646) 971-0685
Attorneys for Defendants Toys 4 USA NY,

LLC and Laltitude LLC
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on March 24, 2023, the foregoing was filed electronically.
Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties, via their counsel of record, by operation of the Court’s
electronic filing and docketing system.
/s/ Yaniv Adar
Yaniv Adar
11
Case 1:23-cv-20776-RAR Document 35-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2023 Page 1 of 15

MIAMI DIVISION
CRAZY FORTS INC.,

Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No.: 1:23-CV-20776-RAR

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF ANDREW BOCHNER, ESQ.

IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RETRAINING ORDER
I, Andrew Bochner, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this
affidavit.
2. I am an attorney at Bochner IP, PLLC, attorneys for Defendants Toys 4 USA NY,
LLC (“Toys 4”) and Laltitude LLC (“Laltitude” and, collectively, “Defendants”).
3. On March 16, 2023, I contacted counsel for Plaintiff, Joel Rothman and Layla
Nguyen of the law firm SR IP Law, and informed them that Bochner IP, PLLC represents Toys 4
USA NY, LLC in the above-captioned case.
4. A true and correct copy of my communications with Plaintiff’s counsel is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
5. In those communications, I made clear to Plaintiff’s counsel that the TRO had frozen
all of Toys 4’s Amazon revenues from Toys 4’s various listings, not just the revenue garnered from
the allegedly infringing product.
6. Plaintiff’s counsel alleged that Toys 4 had sold 493 infringing products.
7. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that the alleged sales of allegedly infringing
products amounted to approximately $20,000.00.
8. Plaintiff’s counsel also acknowledged that the TRO had frozen what was then
$448,077.00 of Toys 4’s money, which number has since increased and continues to grow as long
as the TRO is in place.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: March 23, 2023
/s/ Andrew D. Bochner
Andrew D. Bochner, Esq.

EXHIBIT A
Andrew Bochner
From: Layla Nguyen <layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:17 PM
To: Andrew Bochner
Subject: RE: Crazy Forts Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on
Schedule "A" Case No.: 1:23-cv-20776-RAR Our File: 00936-0001
Mr. Bochner,
I understand the amount of funds may exceed the amount recoverable in this case as you perceive. We have provided
you a draft joint stipulation to reduce those funds while we work out a resolution. But I have not heard back from you
on the draft. I am trying to work with you. I have just relayed my client’s settlement demand, and of course that is
flexible. If you have a counteroffer, then please provide it.
Florida | Los Angeles | New York | Atlanta | Nashville

Layla Nguyen
Associate
21301 Powerline Road, Suite 100
Boca Raton, Florida 33433
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com
www.sriplaw.com
From: Andrew Bochner <andrew@bochnerip.com>

To: Layla Nguyen <layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com>
Subject: RE: Crazy Forts Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
Case No.: 1:23-cv-20776-RAR Our File: 00936-0001
You do realize most of those funds are not tied to this product, but rather to my clients’ entire storefront? You have no
rights to those funds.

Office: 646.971.0685 | Direct: 347.614.5332 | Mobile: 917.553.1529
andrew@bochnerip.com | www.bochnerip.com

To: Andrew Bochner <andrew@bochnerip.com>
1
Mr. Bochner
From the Amazon marketplace report, there’s about $448,077 in restrained funds, and probably more accumulating
everyday. There were 493 infringing products sold as reported. The only settlement authority I have to settle here is
$90,000. If you have a counteroffer, I would be happy to bring it back to my client to discuss.
Layla

Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com

Subject: Re: Crazy Forts Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
Yes thank you. Do you have a settlement position here?
Andrew D. Bochner
Bochner IP

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:47:53 AM
Is this what you are looking for?

Layla Nguyen
Associate
2

Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com
From: Layla Nguyen

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:46 AM
Wait sorry attached the wrong thing – gimme a minute

Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com
From: Layla Nguyen

Oh sorry I misread what you were requesting. FYI the motion for TRO is not a sealed document, it’s on the public docket.
Other than that, I am confused of what you are asking for…

Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
3
www.sriplaw.com

Layla- this is not what I asked for. I need your memo that accompanied your TRO filing. As you know that is sealed. I am
capable of reading the Order.
Andrew D. Bochner
Bochner IP

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:40:42 AM
Andrew –
I gave you the link with all the sealed filings, but if you need the copy here it is.

Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com

Layla,
I am renewing our request for the TRO papers, in their entirety. We have not seeing your memo, and it is sealed. Are you
refusing to provide it?

4
From: Andrew Bochner

Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 5:48 PM
Understood – but I have a client that has substantial harm here. Can you share the briefing on that? I’d like to
understand, and be able to talk with my client, about the application to them.


Andrew,
Just so you are aware, I have not formally served your client yet with service of process because as I mentioned earlier,
we haven’t received data back from Amazon.
We usually provide defendants with the notice page here: https://www.sriplaw.com/crazy-forts-inc-v-the-individuals-

partnerships-and-unincorporated-associations-identified-on-schedule-a-flsd-12023-cv-20776/
The sealed order granting the motion for TRO is at DE 10 on the link.

Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com
5

Layla can you please send me a copy of the TRO filings?


Andrew,
Sorry for the multiple emails. I still have to confirm with my client that it is okay to reduce the restrained amounts but
here is the draft stip to get the ball moving on this.
Layla

Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com

Layla,
Thank you for the time just now. As discussed, my client will agree to keep $20,000 held in Amazon, subject to a stip that
releases the remainder immediately.
6
Please send me a draft stip that we can file by Monday.


Andrew – here is the evidence report.

Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com
From: Layla Nguyen


Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com
7

Layla, I see you just called, can I call you in 15?


To: Layla Nguyen <layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com>; Joel Rothman <joel@sriplaw.com>
Cc: Jason Aquilino <jason.aquilino@sriplaw.com>
Layla- I would prefer today. I have a client that cant make payroll because of the TRO that seems to focus on Chinese
counterfeiters, whereas they are NY-based.


To: Andrew Bochner <andrew@bochnerip.com>; Joel Rothman <joel@sriplaw.com>
Cc: Jason Aquilino <jason.aquilino@sriplaw.com>
Hello Mr. Bochner,
Sorry I missed your call, but I am a little booked up for today. Do you have time to speak on Monday?
Here is the sealed Schedule A – I just advised my team to put it up on our notice page here
https://www.sriplaw.com/crazy-forts-inc-v-the-individuals-partnerships-and-unincorporated-associations-identified-on-
schedule-a-flsd-12023-cv-20776/
8
Layla Nguyen
Associate
Main: (561) 404‐4350
Direct: (561) 826‐6924
www.sriplaw.com

To: Joel Rothman <joel@sriplaw.com>
Cc: Jason Aquilino <jason.aquilino@sriplaw.com>; Layla Nguyen <layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com>
Layla- following up.
Andrew D. Bochner
Bochner IP

Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:54:05 AM
To: Joel Rothman <joel@sriplaw.com>
Appreciate it. You can disregard the VM I just left.
Layla – are you free at about 10:45?

From: Joel Rothman <joel@sriplaw.com>

Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click the links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Bochner,
9
My colleague Layla Nguyen is handing this matter for our firm and I have copied her here so you have her email address
which is Layla.Nguyen@Sriplaw.com. I have asked her to reach out to you in order to discuss this further. You can also
call her at 561-826-6924. Expect to hear from her soon.
Joel
Florida | Los Angeles | New York | Atlanta | Nashville | Medellin

Joel B. Rothman
Managing Partner
Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law
Direct: (561) 404‐4335
Main: (561) 404‐4350
joel.rothman@sriplaw.com
www.sriplaw.com
Admitted to practice law in the states of Florida, New York, Georgia, and Washington; the U.S. Supreme Court and the following federal circuit courts
of appeal: CA11, CAFC, CA5, CA9, CA2, CA10, CA3, CA7, CAVC; and regularly admitted to the following federal districts: FLSD, FLMD, FLND,
GAND, GASD, GAMD, NYSD, NYED, NYND, NYWD, MIED, MIWD, MSSD, WIWD, ILND, ILCD, ILSD, TNWD, TNMD, TNED, ARED, ARWD,
TXSD, TXND, TXWD, TXED, COD, DCD, WAWD, WAED, OKND, OKWD, CFClaims, and the VA.

Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:21 PM
To: Joel Rothman <joel@sriplaw.com>; Jason Aquilino <jason.aquilino@sriplaw.com>
Cc: Attorney <attorney@sriplaw.com>
Joel,
We are counsel to Toys 4 USA NY LLC (“Toys 4”) and are in receipt of the email below. As a preliminary matter, please
direct all correspondence to our attention. We received the complaint and summons, but there is no indication my client
is named as a party, as you have not provided Schedule A. Can you please provide a copy expeditiously?
Separately, please explain your basis for this suit against Toys 4 – based on the allegations, they obviously do not fall
under this action.
Jason – hope all is well.
Andrew

10
From: Attorney <attorney@sriplaw.com>

Subject: Crazy Forts Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE. A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the
United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12
(a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff’s attorney whose information
appears below and on the attached documents.
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You
also must file your answer or motion with the court.
All the documents in this case are collected and posted online at the following link: https://www.sriplaw.com/notice/
Sincerely,

Main: (561) 404-4350
www.sriplaw.com
11
12

MIAMI DIVISION
CRAZY FORTS INC.,

Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No.: 1:23-CV-20776-RAR

Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
The Court has reviewed the motion submitted by Defendants Toys 4 USA NY, LLC and
Laltitude, LLC. After due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1) The Motion is GRANTED.
2) The March 3, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order shall dissolve at 5:00pm on March 27, 2023.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this __ day of March
2023.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to counsel of record via CM/ECF

Crazy Forts v. Schedule A - TRO Oppn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crazy Forts v. Schedule A - TRO Oppn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-20776-RAR Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2023 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CRAZY FORTS INC.,

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

similar overbroad generalizations, treating all Defendants as indistinguishable foreign companies

Temporary Restraining Order.

confer and hung up the phone.

secured an injunction against the American Defendants based on demonstrably false

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO on March 3, 2023.

Amazon. 3 Bochner Decl. ¶ 8.

third-party marketplace platforms had implemented a freeze on each defendants’ assets in

and may have an opinion on the relief sought.

unsupported infringement allegations. See, e.g., ECF 21 (dismissing one defendant), 23

to dismiss one of the American Defendants for an extortionate payment of $90,000).

TRO to dissolve on March 27, 2023.

A. Plaintiff willfully failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).

Court that no party is represented by counsel. As demonstrated by the Bochner Declaration,

B. TROs should only be renewed once.

Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No.

cause.”) (emphasis added).

65(a)(1) (emphasis added).

A later decision by Judge Cannon in the Tang matter is instructive. As summarized in a

Tang v. Individuals, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 21-

March 27, 2023 based on the expiration of 28 days.

C. There is no record evidence supporting a finding of good cause.

least wholly inapplicable to Toys 4 and Laltitude. 4

D. The relief sought is a true emergency.

the American Defendants respectfully request an emergency hearing and an opportunity to be

Dated: March 23, 2023

Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certification

By: /s/ Yaniv Adar

Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) Certification

MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN

By: /s/ Yaniv Adar

BOCHNER IP, PLLC

Serge Krimnus, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants Toys 4 USA NY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CRAZY FORTS INC.,

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS

DECLARATION OF ANDREW BOCHNER, ESQ.

I, Andrew Bochner, hereby declare as follows:

USA NY, LLC in the above-captioned case.

4. A true and correct copy of my communications with Plaintiff’s counsel is attached

the allegedly infringing product.

7. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that the alleged sales of allegedly infringing

products amounted to approximately $20,000.00.

as the TRO is in place.

I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: March 23, 2023

/s/ Andrew D. Bochner

Andrew D. Bochner, Esq.

From: Layla Nguyen <layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com>

Florida | Los Angeles | New York | Atlanta | Nashville

From: Andrew Bochner <andrew@bochnerip.com>

Andrew D. Bochner, Esq.

From: Layla Nguyen <layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com>

Florida | Los Angeles | New York | Atlanta | Nashville

From: Andrew Bochner <andrew@bochnerip.com>

Yes thank you. Do you have a settlement position here?

From: Layla Nguyen <layla.nguyen@sriplaw.com>

Is this what you are looking for?