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”, 

 Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge: Jeffrey Cole 

 

DEFENDANT GYROOR’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER [DKT 456] 

Defendant Gyroor, by and through counsel, moves this Court for a clarification of its orders 

[Dkt. 562]. While “Defendants do not have standing to challenge any such error,” under Rule 60(a), 

this Court has inherent power to correct “a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one 

is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). 

1. Legal Standard 

The Commentary to Rule of Professional R. 3.3 elaborates that in ex parte proceedings, “[T]he 

judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration.” See Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 

Art. VIII, R. 3.3, Comment [14]. 

Courts have an “obligation to correct substantial miscarriages of justice.” United States v. Frady, 

456 U.S. 152, 179 (1982). Specifically, “the Court has an obligation to ensure it does not overlook factual 

matters in considering issues brought before it, and an obligation to be fair to the litigants on both sides of 

the case, and, if necessary, ‘to correct clear error and to prevent manifest injustice.’” Romero v. United 

States, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4384, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2003) (citing Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 

393, 395, n.2 (2d Cir. 2000), Doe v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 567 Filed: 06/24/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:14047
2 

Furthermore, “[t]he Court has an obligation to examine carefully its jurisdiction and to correct 

jurisdictional defects on its own motion where the parties have not raised the issue.” Lawrence Crawford 

Ass'n for Exceptional Citizens, Inc. v. Conversource, Inc., No. 4:04-cv-4130-DGW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

47991, at *5 (S.D. Ill. June 23, 2008). 

2. Arguments 

Here, first, the burden is on Plaintiffs to prove that a preliminary injunction is justified against 

each entity that was included on the Exhibit A. Without a clear showing of evidence, how could such 

an injunction be justified? The burden of proof should not be shifted to the accused entities. 

Second, this Court recognizes that at least one entity was improperly included in the exhibit to 

the preliminary injunction order due to Plaintiffs’ mistake and its oversight. [Dkt, 562]. This Court 

further recognizes that other similarly situated entities could also have been improperly included in the 

injunction order. Id. 

A preliminary injunction against the foreign entities without supporting evidence or sufficient 

notice is inequitable. Unlike domestic entities, foreign entities have limited access to legal 

representation in the United States. The third-party foreign entities that were subject to the exhibit of 

the preliminary injunction, likely due to Plaintiffs’ mistakes and this Court’s oversight, constitutes an 

extraordinary circumstance that calls for equitable action from this Court. 

Modification to exclude the unnamed third-parties from the preliminary injunction would allow 

this Court to prevent any substantial miscarriage of justice. 

Third, jurisdiction was assumed over the foreign entities regardless of whether they had any 

contact with this judicial district. 

Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests for a clarification whether this Court would 

consider, on its own motion, modify and exclude the third-party entities that were not mentioned in 

Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a preliminary injunction. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 567 Filed: 06/24/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:14048
3 

Date: 06/24/2022 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju 

GLACIER LAW PLLC 

200 Park Avenue, Ste 1703 

New York, NY 10166 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 567 Filed: 06/24/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:14049
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this June 24, 2022, 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: 06/24/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju 

 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 567 Filed: 06/24/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:14050