1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MU TECH, INC., Case No.: 3:24-cv-01976-JAH-VET

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY

10 v. RESTRAINING ORDER AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

11 CATHERINE CHAN KOK YIN,

AND HEARING FOR

THOMAS LEE CHEUK WAI,

12 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MAJESTIC PLAN INVESTMENTS

13 LIMITED, BELTON TECHNOLOGY, [ECF No. 6]

INC., AND DOES 1 THRU 50,

14 Defendants. 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Mu Tech, Inc’s (“Plaintiff” or “Mu Tech”) 17 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 18 6 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Plaintiff requests this Court to issue a TRO and preliminary 19 injunction prohibiting Defendants from divulging, using, disclosing, relying on, or 20 otherwise making publicly available any of Plaintiff’s licensed intellectual property. Id. 21 Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of proprietary and confidential intellectual property 22 from the company Asia Top Loyalty, Inc. (“ATL”) for North American territories. Mot. 23 at 2. ATL is the owner of intellectual property and information, including trade secrets 24 related to ATL’s loyalty points exchange and proprietary system for eCommerce, pay- 25 with-points, co-brand Mastercard and a buy-now, pay-later system. Id. Plaintiff alleges 26 that the Defendants Catherine Chan and Thomas Lee breached the non-disclosure and non- 27 compete provisions contained in a Guarantee Agreement entered into with the President, 28 CEO, and Director of ATL. Id. at 3. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants formed 1 and promoted a look-alike company called “AsiaTop Loyalty Alliance Limited” and 2 created an “unauthorized website” with the domain https://www.asiatopalliance.com, 3 which has since been removed. Id. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has created a 4 LinkedIn website with the name “AsiaTop Loyalty Alliance,” replicating the same business 5 model as ATL thereby causing customer confusion. Id. at 4. As a result, Plaintiff claims 6 that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction because 7 it is in “real jeopardy of losing all of its ability to complete its initial public offering 8 (‘IPO’)” due to marketplace confusion. Id. at 5. 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a TRO may be issued without written or 10 oral notice to the adverse party or its counsel only if: “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or 11 a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage 12 will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the 13 movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why 14 it should not be required.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that 15 there are “very limited circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO.” Reno 16 Air Racing Ass’n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining the 17 issuance of a TRO may be appropriate in circumstances where notice to the adverse party 18 is impossible because of an unknown identity or location). 19 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s TRO application and supporting evidence is 20 procedurally deficient to support this Court’s issuance of a TRO for two reasons. First, 21 Plaintiff fails to provide specific facts demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury, 22 loss, or damage before the adverse party can be heard in opposition. While Plaintiff argues 23 that the completion of its IPO is in danger, Plaintiff fails to provide facts or details 24 demonstrating immediate inability to raise capital or lost opportunities that would impact 25 its IPO. Mot. at 5. And, according to Plaintiff, “Defendants have taken down the website.” 26 Id. at 3. Second, Plaintiff fails to certify in writing any efforts made to give notice (written 27 or oral) to the adverse party and the reasons why it should not be required. Accordingly, 28 the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO and ORDERS the parties to brief the 1 || Plaintiff's Motion solely with respect to the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, IT IS 2 || HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of its Motion (ECF No. 6) to all Defendants no later 4 than December 17, 2024; 5 2. Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion on or before January 2, 6 2025; 7 3. Plaintiff may file a reply no later than January 8, 2025, at NOON; and 8 4. A hearing shall be held on January 22, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATED: December 13, 2024 M&S 11 12 YOHN A. HOUSTON

B UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28