Converse Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CONVERSE INC., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-cv-01843-MTS
)
THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 	)
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 	)
IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This 	matter 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	on 	Plaintiff 	Converse, 	Inc.’s 	Motion 	for
Preliminary Injunction. Doc. [30]. Plaintiff filed the Motion today, January 26, 2026, the
final day that the Court’s extended temporary restraining order is in effect. 	See Doc.
[29]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff requests that, if the
Court “does not rule on this Motion before the current TRO expiration [in mere hours],”
Doc. [30] at 1; but see E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(B) (providing that a party opposing a motion
has fourteen days to respond to it); In re Sac & Fox Tribe of Miss. in Iowa/Meskwaki
Casino Litig., 340 F.3d 749, 765 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting the “issuance of a preliminary
injunction requires reasonable notice and a chance for the respondent party to prepare and
respond”), then Plaintiff also “seeks to extend the TRO to maintain the status quo until
there is a ruling on Converse’s Motion for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction,” Doc. [30]
at 1.
Case: 4:25-cv-01843-MTS Doc. #: 33 Filed: 01/26/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Despite Plaintiff’s seemingly unnecessary delay, the Court finds that Plaintiff
indeed has demonstrated good cause to extend the Court’s previous injunctive relief. See
See H-D Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 845 (7th Cir.
2012). 	Plaintiff’s filings demonstrate that not doing so would allow the Defendants to
move their funds offshore and avoid liability for their counterfeiting activities. 	See
MeccaTech, Inc. v. Kiser, 8:05-cv-0570-LSC, 2008 WL 934366, at *4 (D. Neb. Apr. 1,
2008) (finding injunctive relief appropriate, in part, when it ensures “that defendants do
not fraudulently or otherwise transfer assets during litigation to circumvent recovery by a
wronged plaintiff”).
Accordingly,
IT 	IS 	HEREBY 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff 	Converse, 	Inc.’s 	Motion 	for
Preliminary 	Injunction, 	Doc. 	[30], 	is 	GRANTED 	in 	part 	in 	that 	the 	injunction
previously entered by the court is EXTENDED pending a ruling on the remainder of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Signed this 26th day of January 2026, at 8:38 p.m.
_____________________________________
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01843-MTS Doc. #: 33 Filed: 01/26/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>