1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LYNNE A. BUI, et al., Case No. 25-cv-04284-NW

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 9 v. MOTION FOR TRO

10 THE EVERGREEN ADVANTAGE, LLC, Re: ECF No. 11 et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff Lynne A. Bui (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se, filed a 14 complaint for herself and purportedly on behalf of Total New Energy Systems Co., Ltd. (“TNES”) 15 against The Evergreen Advantage, LLC (“Defendants”). Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 16 simultaneously filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. 17 On May 23, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application. ECF No. 4. The Court 18 additionally reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant

. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) (the court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee 20 whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 21 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 22 from such relief.”). The Court ordered that Plaintiff cannot represent TNES on a pro se basis, and 23 that TNES must retain counsel by June 27, 2025. Id. at 3. Additionally, the Court found that 24 Plaintiff had not established a basis for federal jurisdiction over the action because Plaintiff has 25 not asserted federal question jurisdiction nor has Plaintiff alleged complete diversity of citizenship 26 between the parties.1 Id. at 3-4. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint 27 1 addressing the basis for federal jurisdiction by June 27, 2025. Jd. 2 On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order 3 (“TRO”) against Defendants. Mot. for TRO, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff explains that Defendants have 4 || an “online auction scheduled for June 10 to June 12, 2025 involving Plaintiff TNES’s valuable 5 solar panel manufacturing equipment.” /d. at 1. Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin Defendants 6 || from “selling, transferring, or otherwise disposing of any of Plaintiffs’ equipment located at 5729 7 Fontanoso Way, San Jose, CA 95138.” Jd. at 3. 8 The Court has no authority to issue a temporary restraining order if it lacks jurisdiction 9 || over the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

(1999) (“Personal 10 || jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district... court, without which the 11 court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”) (alteration in original) (citation and internal 12 quotation omitted); Bank of New York Mellon v. Martinez,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 13 May 1, 2019) (“{a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over 14 || the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.”) (citing Hussain v. Ponce,

15 1055235, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2019)). a 16 Plaintiff has not yet cured the jurisdictional defects in her complaint, and has until June 27, 2 17 || 2025, to do so. The Court currently lacks jurisdiction over Defendants, against whom Plaintiff Z 18 seeks temporary injunctive relief. Therefore, Plaintiff's application for an ex parte TRO is 19 || DENIED without prejudice. 20 The Court’s prior Order, ECF No. 4, remains in full effect. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: June 9, 2025 23 Mh hid Noél Wise 24 United States District Judge 25 26 be worth $10,000.” The Court notes that Plaintiff in fact alleged in the complaint that “[t]he 07 approximate value of the Equipment is $10,000,000,” which Is above the $75,000 threshold required for diversity jurisdiction. Compl., § 11. While Plaintiff has alleged an amount sufficient 2g || to meet the diversity jurisdiction threshold, Plaintiff has not established complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.