BMaddox Enterprises LLC v. Milad Oskouie, Osko M Ltd., and Platinum Avenue Holdings Pty, Ltd., 1:17-cv-01889-RA-SLC

BMaddox Enterprises LLC alleges defendants (Milad Oskouie; Osko M Ltd.; Platinum Avenue Holdings Pty Ltd.) accessed its online accounts, copied copyrighted educational materials and website "look and feel," and launched a competing site ffltrust.com.
Plaintiff sued for copyright infringement, trade-secret misappropriation, CFAA and DMCA violations, seeking damages and injunctive relief, and moved ex parte for a temporary Asset Restraining Order (ARO) targeting defendants' accounts at PayPal, Stripe, banks and other payment processors.
Judge Abrams initially denied the ex parte application without prejudice, then after supplemental submissions granted the ARO on May 30, 2017; the ARO was later extended pending trial after consolidation with the merits trial.
Defendants moved to dissolve or modify the ARO after being heard; the Magistrate Judge considered whether plaintiff sustained its burden to continue the ex parte restraint.
The Magistrate Judge found plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence of imminent irreparable harm (no affidavits or evidentiary proof of asset dissipation or intent to frustrate a future judgment) and that prior allegations largely relied on past misconduct or counsel statements.
Recommendation: dissolve the ARO without prejudice to renewal if plaintiff can present evidence that defendants have secreted or are likely to secrete assets with intent to frustrate a judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an ex parte Asset Restraining Order should continue	Plaintiff: defendants will imminently secrete assets (via PayPal/aliases) to frustrate any future judgment; past obfuscation shows risk	Defendants: no evidence they will hide assets; they appeared and litigate here; restraint overbroad	Held: ARO should be dissolved — plaintiff failed to show likely irreparable harm to justify continued restraint
Whether plaintiff met burden of proof after defendants had notice	Plaintiff: continued risk shown by aliases, commingling, prior false statements	Defendants: plaintiff provided only counsel assertions and weak printouts; no admissible evidence	Held: Plaintiff bore burden and did not provide admissible evidence (no affidavits or proof of imminent dissipation)
Whether past infringement/false statements presumptively justify freezing assets	Plaintiff: history of deception supports restraint	Defendants: past misconduct does not equal imminent dissipation to frustrate judgment	Held: Past misconduct insufficient; risk must be more than speculative or possible
Whether alleged commingling/PayPal use establishes intent to frustrate judgment	Plaintiff: same emails/aliases across accounts imply commingling and ability to move funds	Defendants: no proof funds were transferred abroad or hidden to defeat judgment	Held: Alleged commingling and payment-processor use do not demonstrate intent or imminent action to frustrate collection

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1974) (standards for ex parte temporary restraining orders)
Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) (factors for preliminary injunction analysis)
Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227 (2d Cir. 1999) (irreparable harm requirement for injunctive relief)
JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990) (movant must show likelihood, not mere possibility, of irreparable harm)
Grand River Enter. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2007) (monetary injury generally not irreparable; need evidence of insolvency or asset concealment)
Kulhawik v. Holder, 571 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2009) (unsworn attorney statements in briefs are not evidence)
JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., [citation="618 F. App'x 31"] (2d Cir. 2015) (irreparable harm is essential for injunctive relief)