1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

 

DEFENDANTS URBANMAX AND FENGCHI-US’ THIS MOTION 

FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [113 & 147], OR 

ALTERNATIVELY TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Defendants Urbanmax and Fengshi-US (together “Defendants”), without waiving any Rule 12(b) 

defenses, by and through their counsel, file this Motion for Clarification of the Preliminary Injunction 

Orders [Dkt. No. 113 & 147], or alternatively, Motion to Vacate the Preliminary Injunction against them. 

To avoid any further delay, Defendants proposed that a response be filed within two-weeks’ time 

after this motion is served on Plaintiff. After meeting and conferring, Plaintiffs and Defendants could not 

reach an agreement on the briefing schedule. Proposed briefing schedules from each party are summarized 

in the table below. 

Defendants’ Proposal Plaintiffs’ Proposal 

Response to Motion July 2 July 18 

Reply July 9 August 1 

Introduction 

On November 24, 2020, this Court entered a preliminary injunction order against defendants 

who operate e-commerce stores identified in Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule C [Dkt. No. 113]. 

On December 23, 2020, this Court modified the preliminary injunction order against defendants who 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 297 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:6952
2 

operate e-commerce stores identified in Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule C [Dkt. No. 147]. 

Neither order mentions specifically Urbanmax or Fengshi-US, who were nonparties at the time when 

the orders were entered. 

Urbanmax and Fengshi-US were nonparties until they were added as “Schedule A” defendants 

on May 24, 2021 [Dkt. No. 253]. However, Urbanmax and Fengshi-US’s accounts and assets were 

restrained on or about February 12, 2021, three months before they were added as Defendants. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C), preliminary injunction can be enforced against a third party only 

upon a court’s authorization. Rule 65(d)(2) authorizes courts to enforce injunctions against third parties 

who are “in active concert or participation with” the parties who are bound by the injunction. In addition, 

third parties must be served with a notice of the motion to enforce preliminary injunction order on third 

parties and an opportunity to be heard, so that a court can make a determination on the issue of “active 

concert and participation” before the injunction can be enforced on the third parties. 

Neither Urbanmax nor Fengshi-US received notice of any motion to enforce the preliminary 

injunction order against them, and this Court never issued any order to restrain Urbanmax or Fengshi-US. 

Their accounts and assets were wrongfully restrained since February 12, 2021. Unless this Court clarifies 

the scopes of its prior preliminary injunction orders or vacate the injunction on Defendants, Defendants’ 

accounts and assets will continue to be wrongfully restrained. 

Therefore, Defendants respectfully respect that this Court clarify the scopes of its prior orders 

[Dkt. No. 113 & 147] with respect to third parties accounts and assets, or alternatively, vacate any 

wrongful injunction against Defendants as a result of Plaintiffs’ violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). 

Background 

On October 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction [Dkt. No. 80], and 

subsequently withdrew on November 02, 2020 [Dkt. No. 94]. 

On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction [Dkt. No. 105]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 297 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:6953
3 

On November 24, 2020, a hearing for preliminary injunction motion was held [Dkt. No. 112], 

and a preliminary injunction order was entered [Dkt. No. 113]. 

On or about February 12, 2021, Urbanmax and Fengshi-US’ accounts and assets were restrained. 

Aff. of Zhang Ke, ¶4, attached hereto as Ex. 1; and Aff. of Zhang Chi, ¶4, attached hereto as Ex. 2. 

Neither Urbanmax nor Fengshi-US received a notice of any motion to enforce the preliminary injunction 

order on them prior to February 12, 2021. 

On May 6, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend Schedule A, and added Urbanmax and 

Fengshi-US as “Schedule A” Defendants [Dkt. No. 227]. The motion was subsequently granted on 

May 24, 2021 [Dkt. No. 253]. 

Legal Standards 

“Rule 65(d)(2)(C) authorizes courts to enforce injunctions against third parties who have actual 

notice of the injunction, and who are in active concert or participation with the parties who are bound by 

the injunction.” Blockowicz v. Williams, 630 F.3d 563, 566, (7th Cir, 2010) (citing Rule 65(d)(2)(C)). 

“Supreme Court law as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit forbids pre-determining the question 

of whether an injunction binds a third party under Rule 65(d)(2) without first serving the third party and 

giving it an opportunity to be heard. Pow! Entm’t, LLC v. Individuals, Corps., Limited Liability 

Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

154861, at*5-6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2020); (citing Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd. v. Commodity Futures 

Trading Com’n., 511 F.3d 762, 766-67 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Kirschenbaum, 156 F.3d 784, 

794-96 (7th Cir. 1998) (both applying Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 

110-11, 89 S. Ct. 1562, 23 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1969))). 

“Whether a particular person or firm is among the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, 

and attorneys; or other persons in active concert or participation with them (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(B) 

and (C)) is a decision that may be made only after the person in question is given notice and an 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 297 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:6954
4 

opportunity to be heard.” See Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. v. CFTC, 511 F.3d 762, 766-67 (7th Cir, 2007); 

see also Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States Under the Hereditary 

Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States, Inc., 628 F.3d 837, 

853 (7th Cir, 2010) (a court establishes jurisdiction over a nonparty and offers the nonparty this 

opportunity to be heard before a nonparty may properly be held in contempt for violating an injunction);

BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Issa, 2020 WL 1325278, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49004, at*11-12 (D.Utah Mar. 

20, 2020) (Rule 65(d)(2) “limits . . . the extent to which an injunction may be enforced against 

nonparties,” ... and enacts the policy “of not having order(s) or injunction(s) so broad as to make 

punishable the conduct of persons who act independently and whose rights have not been adjudged 

according to law.”) (quoting Golden State Bottling Co. v. N.L.R.B., 414 U.S. 168, 180 (1973)). 

Arguments 

I. This Court did not intend to restrain Urbanmax or Fengshi-US’ accounts and assets 

without further hearings at the time when the preliminary injunction orders were entered. 

Neither Urbanmax nor Fengshi-US’ was named in the Court’s preliminary injunction orders [Dkt. 

No. 113 & 147]. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ later enforcement of the Courts’ order against unnamed third parties, 

without proper authorization form this Court, is wrongful and violates Rule 65(d)(2)(C). 

Due to Plaintiffs’ wrongful enforcement of this Court’s preliminary injunction orders, Urbanmax 

and Fengshi-US respectfully seek clarification from this Court as to whether this Court intended to restrain 

any unnamed third parties’ accounts and assets without any further notice or hearing, at the time when the 

orders were entered. 

II. Alternatively, the preliminary injunction against Urbanmax or Fengshi-US must be 

vacated because no notice or hearing was given to Urbanmax or Fengshi-US. 

 

Enforcing the preliminary injunction orders against Urbanmax and Fengshi-US’s accounts and 

assets requires that a notice and an opportunity to be heard be given, pursuant to Lake Shore Asset Mgmt v. 

CFTC, 511 F.3d 762 (7th Cir, 2007). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 297 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:6955
5 

Here, Urbanmax and Fengshi-US have never been served with a notice or given an opportunity 

to be heard with respect to the enforcement of the preliminary injunction. Aff. of Zhang Ke, ¶5, Ex. 1; 

and Aff. of Zhang Chi, ¶5, Ex. 2. As shown in the case docket, no hearing was scheduled before Plaintiffs 

enforced the orders. Therefore, the enforcement of the preliminary injunction against Urbanmax and 

Fengshi-US violates Rule 65(d)(2)(C) and must be vacated. 

Furthermore, Urbanmax and Fengshi-US were added as Schedule A Defendants on May 24, 2021. 

Rule 65(a) governs preliminary injunction ordered on parties. Here, the notice requirement under 

Rule 65(a)(1) is not satisfied. Therefore, the preliminary injunction against Defendants Urbanmax and 

Fengshi-US also violates Rule65 (a)(1) and must be vacated. 

Conclusion 

Without proper advanced notice of the preliminary injunction motion or enforcement motion, 

Defendants were not given an opportunity to present any evidence. Therefore, Defendants respectfully 

request the Court clarify the scopes vacate the Preliminary Injunction ordered against Defendants. 

Date: 06/18/2021 /s/ Tao Liu 

 

Tao Liu, Esq.

Glacier Law PLLC

200 Park Ave, Ste 1703

NEW YORK, NY 10166

Attorney for Defendants

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 297 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:6956
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this June 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing file with 

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of record and 

interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 06/18/2021 /s/ Tao Liu 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 297 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6957