PleasrDAO v. Shkreli
| New York Eastern District Court | |
| Judge: | Pamela K Chen |
| Referred: | Marcia M Henry |
| Case #: | 1:24-cv-04126 |
| Nature of Suit | 880 Civil Rights - Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) |
| Cause | 18:1836(a) - Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets |
| Case Filed: | Jun 10, 2024 |
| Last checked: Sunday Dec 08, 2024 4:24 AM EST |
|
Defendant
Martin Shkreli
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
PleasrDAO
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Jun 11 2024
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for a Temporary Restraining Order. On June 25, 2024, at 12:00 p.m., in Courtroom 4F North, Defendant shall show cause why this Court should not order a preliminary injunction; order Defendant to provide an inventory and account; and order seizure of Defendant's remaining copies of the Album's data and files and/or the return of those copies. Defendant shall file responsive papers to Plaintiff's application, via ECF, on or before June 20, 2024. Plaintiff shall file reply papers, if any, in further support of its application, via ECF, on or before June 24, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. (noon). Plaintiff is directed to serve the attached Order and this docket entry on Defendant by June 13, 2024, and to file proof of service by June 14, 2024. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 6/11/2024. (AH) Modified on 6/11/2024 to update docket entry. (FG) |
|
|
GPO
Aug 26 2024
ORDER: Pursuant to the hearing held on August 23, 2024 on the Court's 10 Order to Show Cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and for the reasons stated in the attached, the Court issues the attached Preliminary Injunction Order. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 8/26/2024. (AH) |
| Docket last updated: 5 hours ago |
| Thursday, February 20, 2025 | ||
|
order
Order on Motion for Sanctions
Thu 02/20 3:00 PM
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's56 letter motion for sanctions against Defendant, requesting attorney's fees and costs incurred in litigating Plaintiff's contempt motion. While Plaintiff believes that Defendant Shkreli's latest54 Declaration complies with the Court's30 Preliminary Injunction Order and subsequent orders, Plaintiff still believes sanctions are warranted because of the delay in Defendant coming into compliance. ( See Dkt. 56 at 1.) The Court declines to impose sanctions. A federal court "may exercise its inherent power to sanction a party or an attorney who has 'acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.'" Ransmeier v. Mariani , 718 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991)). In the Second Circuit, "the bad faith standard is not easily satisfied and sanctions are warranted only in extreme cases." McCune v. Rugged Ent., LLC , No. 08-CV-2677 (KAM), 2010 WL 1189390, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010). The Court finds that Defendant's conduct here does not rise to the level of bad faith warranting the imposition of sanctions. Notably, the Court previously denied Plaintiff's contempt motion, ( see 1/21/2025 Dkt. Order), and now Defendant has fully complied with the Preliminary Injunction Order. While the Court understands that litigating this issue has been frustrating for Plaintiff, the Court still does not find that sanctions are warranted. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 2/20/2025. (AGA) |
||
| Tuesday, February 18, 2025 | ||
| 56 | 56
motion
Sanctions
Tue 02/18 5:28 PM
Letter MOTION for Sanctions and response to Defendant's February 4, 2024 submission by PleasrDAO. (Cooper, Steven) |
|