Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08426/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08426-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THE CALIFORNIA BEACH CO. LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HAN XIAN DU, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 19-cv-08426-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 4 

Plaintiff The California Beach Co., LLC (“CBC”) has filed a motion for a temporary 

restraining order and request for an order to show cause and set a hearing on a preliminary 

injunction to restrain defendant Han Xian Du from filing copyright takedown notices with internet 

platforms against CBC. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court set a briefing schedule, ordering that any 

response be filed by January 3, 2020, and that any reply be filed by January 7, 2020. Du did not 

file any response with the Court as to the motion. CBC filed a reply updating the Court on the 

context of its request. (Dkt. No. 19.) 

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that 

govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,

434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 

F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). Preliminary injunctive relief, whether in the form of a 

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy,” 

that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-690 (2008) (internal 

citations omitted). In order to obtain such relief, plaintiffs must establish four factors: (1) they are 

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the 

public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

Case 4:19-cv-08426-YGR Document 22 Filed 01/08/20 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

With respect to the success on the merits and balance of harms factors, courts will permit a 

plaintiff making a strong showing on one factor to offset a weaker showing on the other, so long 

as all four factors are established. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1 1 3 5 

(9th Cir. 2011). In other words, “serious questions going toward the merits and a hardship 

balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction so long as the 

plaintiff also shows a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public 

interest.” Design Furnishings, Inc. v. Zen Path, LLC, No. CIV. 2:10-CV-2765-WB, 2010 WL 

5418893, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) (quoting Alliance for Wild Rockies, 622 F.3d at 1053). 

The Court, having duly considered CBC’s Complaint, motion, and the declarations and 

exhibits submitted therewith, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 

1. Based on the limited record before the Court, CBC is likely to succeed on the merits of 

its claim under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) that Du has “knowingly materially misrepresent[ed] under this 

section . . . that material or activity is infringing” thereby damaging CBC “as the result of a service 

provider” (here, Facebook, and Instagram)1

 “removing or disabling access to the material or 

activity claimed to be infringing.” 

2. CBC has established a likelihood of irreparable harm if the service providers (Facebook, 

and Instagram) continue to comply with Du’s takedown requests in the form of permanently lost 

customers, reputational harm, and/or loss of customer good will toward CBC. 

3. The balance of hardships favor entering this restraining order because if this restraining 

order were not issued the impact to CBC’s business could be severe enough to impact CBC’s 

ability to continue as a business; whereas, if Du is able to establish that, in fact, CBC has violated 

Du’s legitimate copyright interests, Du can obtain money damages. 

4. To the extent it is implicated, the public interest favors entering this restraining order 

because the public has an interest in avoiding the misuse of intellectual property laws by market 

competitors to wrongfully harm competition. 

 1

 The Court recognizes that Amazon has since reinstated California Beach’s website. (See 

Dkt. No. 19 at 3-4 (“Amazon recently reinstated CBC’s listing pursuant to Amazon’s system for 

resolving DMCA takedown notification disputes. . . . Accordingly, CBC retracts its request that 

the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order with regard to Defendant’s improper takedown 

notice to Amazon[.]”).) 

Case 4:19-cv-08426-YGR Document 22 Filed 01/08/20 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion for temporary restraining order. 

THEREFORE, DU AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH DU,

ARE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from taking down, based on any alleged copyright infringement, 

from Facebook and Instagram, or any other service provider’s website, CBC’s online content or 

product line. Du is temporarily not permitted to file any further takedown notices with Facebook, 

Instagram, or any other service provider’s website as to CBC’s online content or product line. 

Any current and operative takedown notices in effect that were filed by Du as to CBC are 

restrained, and are to be disregarded by the online service provider. Accordingly, and specifically, 

Facebook (Report #2576187715997707) and Instagram (Report #1407615876061304) are directed 

to disregard Du’s takedown notice and to reinstate CBC’s online content during the period of this 

Order. 

THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINT IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. The Court determines that no 

security bond is necessary as contemplated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). See Connecticut Gen. Life 

Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court is 

afforded wide discretion in setting the amount of the bond, and the bond amount may be zero if 

there is no evidence the party will suffer damages from the injunction.”); Walls v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A., No. 17-CV-02199-HSG,2017 WL 1478961, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) (“The 

district court may dispense with the filing of a bond when it concludes there is no realistic 

likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining his or her conduct.”). 

CBC is ORDERED to serve Du in the same manner it served Du with the motion, and file 

proof of same, within 24 hours of the issuance of this Order. This Order will become permanent 

effective Wednesday, January 22, 2020 unless: (a) an opposition is received from Du by 

Wednesday, January 15, 2020, any response from CBC to an opposition from Du is due no later 

than 9 a.m. January 21, 2020, and with a hearing to be held as noted below; or (b) to the extent 

that CBC seeks to change the scope of the injunction, CBC should file a response by Monday, 

January 13, 2020 with any supporting evidence. The Court will resolve the matter on the papers if 

no objections are filed, or, if a hearing on the matter is not requested. 

If objections are filed or a hearing is requested, the hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on 

Case 4:19-cv-08426-YGR Document 22 Filed 01/08/20 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Wednesday, January 22, 2020 in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse located at 1301 

Clay Street in Oakland, California. 

In light of this Order, the hearing on the motion for temporary restraining order scheduled 

for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 9, 2020 is hereby VACATED. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2020 

 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-08426-YGR Document 22 Filed 01/08/20 Page 4 of 4