Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03383/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03383-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fornix Holdings LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Unknown Party,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-03383-PHX-KML

ORDER 

On December 2, 2024, plaintiffs Fornix Holdings LLC and CP Productions, Inc.,

filed a motion seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order. (Doc. 5.) The court denied

that motion the following day. (Doc. 6.) In doing so, the court directed plaintiffs to address 

two issues if they filed a renewed motion. First, “why deactivation of [<erome.com>]

would be appropriate, even on a temporary basis” given that the site contains other material 

not belonging to plaintiffs. (Doc. 6 at 2.) Second, plaintiffs’ “basis for seeking relief against 

non-parties [VeriSign, Inc., and Cloudflare] considering” plaintiffs were informed in a 

similar case filed in 2022 that it would be improper to grant relief against non-parties in a 

situation almost identical to the present. (Doc. 6 at 2.) Plaintiffs waited ten days to file a 

renewed motion.

The renewed motion addresses the two issues identified by the court in cursory 

fashion. On the issue of whether plaintiffs’ requested injunction would be too broad, the 

renewed motion argues “[w]hen infringing content on a defendant’s website is a persistent 

and pervasive problem, even where not every post is infringing, courts may enjoin the 

Case 2:24-cv-03383-KML Document 10 Filed 12/26/24 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

entire website as the only way to ‘halt the irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.’” (Doc. 8-1 at 17

(quoting Trial Film LLC v. Wu Daoai, No. CV-21-00984-PHX-JJT, 2021 WL 2949508, at 

*2 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2021)). And on the issue of the propriety of the court issuing an order 

requiring non-parties take action, the renewed motion argues,

In the past, Plaintiffs have given notice to Verisign and 

Cloudflare about similar websites and lawsuits and Verisign 

and Cloudflare have agreed to effectuate similar orders from 

courts, without being named as a party. See Lin Decl. ¶ 8. 

Cloudflare and Verisign’s inclination to comply creates a valid 

basis through which the Court may bind them, even though 

they are not named parties.

(Doc. 8-1 at 19.) The cited paragraph of counsel’s declaration states

Based on my experience handling similar matters and my 

previous dealings with VeriSign and Cloudflare, they have 

communicated to me that they will effectuate lawful and 

validly entered court orders concerning domain names, without 

being named as a party in the litigation. Attached hereto as 

Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of said communications.

The communications found at Exhibit 4, however, are from June 2023 involving a different 

case. (Doc. 8-3 at 37-40.) Because plaintiffs’ argument regarding non-parties is not 

convincing, the renewed motion is denied. Thus, the court need not reach the question 

whether the breadth of plaintiffs’ requested relief would be permissible.1

Plaintiffs do not dispute that, in general, the court cannot issue a temporary 

restraining order requiring non-parties take action. See Fornix Holdings LLC v. Unknown 

Party, No. CV-22-00494-PHX-DLR, 2022 WL 992546, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2022). Nor 

do plaintiffs argue the alleged acts by VeriSign and Cloudflare in this case render them the 

type of “person” that might be bound under Rule 65(d). See Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv 

1 That is not to say that if plaintiffs renew their motion, they should rest on the cursory 

argument they have currently made. As the court previously stated, in the preliminary 

injunction context “[t]he scope of the remedy must be no broader and no narrower than 

necessary to redress the injury shown by the plaintiff.” California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 

584 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiffs describe the allegedly-infringing website as a “tube-style” 

website which allows individuals to upload, store, and share videos, and which contains 

“many” videos plaintiffs believe to be infringing. (Docs. 8-1 at 1-2, 8-4 at 8.) Without 

knowing an approximate proportion of material on the website that allegedly infringes a 

copyright (whether plaintiffs’ or someone else’s), it will be difficult for the court to 

determine whether shutting down the entire website is even in the ballpark of a narrowlytailored remedy.

Case 2:24-cv-03383-KML Document 10 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1287 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The text of Rule 65(d) is exclusive, 

stating that an injunction can permissibly bind ‘only’ those persons listed in Rule 65(d).”). 

Instead of establishing, or even arguing, that VeriSign and Cloudflare qualify as one of the 

persons listed in Rule 65(d), plaintiffs argue VeriSign and Cloudflare have previously 

indicated they will abide by court orders and that should be good enough. It is not.

The evidence plaintiffs offer that VeriSign and Cloudflare have already agreed to 

be bound by any order issued in this case consists of correspondence in June 2023 between 

plaintiffs’ counsel, VeriSign, and Cloudflare. That correspondence involved a different 

case. Plaintiffs read that correspondence as establishing VeriSign and Cloudflare have 

agreed to comply with all orders in all cases of this type. The court is not confident that is 

correct. And because any violation of an order might subject VeriSign and Cloudflare to 

contempt, the court will not rely on statements made by those entities eighteen months ago 

in connection with a different case.

Hoping to convince the court that the past statements are sufficient, plaintiffs cite 

Wavve Americas Inc. v. Unknown Party, No. CV-24-02071-PHX-DWL, 2024 WL 

4120365, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2024). The plaintiffs in that case sought an injunction 

against the named defendants and nonparty Namecheap, Inc. The court denied an initial 

request for an injunction requiring Namecheap take action because Namecheap had not 

been named as a defendant. Wavve Americas Inc. v. Unknown Party, No. CV-24-02071-

PHX-DWL, 2024 WL 3848437, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2024). The plaintiffs then 

executed a written stipulation with Namecheap wherein Namecheap agreed it would 

“comply with any orders issued by the Court regarding the domain names at issue.” Id. at 

*4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2024); (see also Doc. 22-2 at 7 in CV-24-2071-PHX-DWL.) That 

stipulation was sufficient for the court to conclude an order aimed at Namecheap was 

permissible. There is not presently any such case-specific stipulation between plaintiffs and 

VeriSign or Cloudflare here.

The renewed motion for temporary restraining order is denied again without 

prejudice. If plaintiffs file another motion it must either be accompanied by case-specific 

Case 2:24-cv-03383-KML Document 10 Filed 12/26/24 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

evidence establishing VeriSign and Cloudflare agree to comply with a court order issued 

in this case or plaintiffs may indicate they no longer wish to obtain relief against the nonparties and the court should resolve the motion regarding the named defendant.2

In 

addition, given their decision to wait ten days to renew their motion, plaintiffs must address 

whether a temporary restraining order remains appropriate. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. 

v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 

439 (1974) (temporary restraining orders “should be restricted to serving their underlying 

purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is 

necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated this 23rd day of December, 2024.

2 Plaintiffs have not identified the named defendant and they have not argued a temporary 

restraining order against that unknown defendant would accomplish any of the relief they 

seek. 

Case 2:24-cv-03383-KML Document 10 Filed 12/26/24 Page 4 of 4