Kingbird Ventures LLC v. Inno Holdings Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KINGBIRD VENTURES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
INNO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-5000
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 25, 2026 at 3:53 p.m. the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for a
TRO in this securities fraud case. ECF 6. The District Judge then referred the case
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B),
the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 7. By its own terms, the TRO expired at 3:53 p.m.
on July 9, 2026. ECF 6 ¶10.
The following motions are currently before the Court: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction and to Expedite Discovery (ECF 2); (2) Defendant’s
Emergency Motion to Modify Temporary Restraining Order (ECF 9); (3) Plaintiff’s
Motion for Entry of Protective Order (ECF 20); (4) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
and Amended Emergency Motion to Extend TRO (ECF 24; ECF 25); (5)
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate TRO (ECF 26); (6) Defendant’s Emergency Motion
to Reconsider the Court’s discovery order at ECF 23 (ECF 27); and (7) Plaintiff’s
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-05000 Document 42 Filed 07/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Emergency Motion for Leave to Serve Third-Party Subpoenas (ECF 28). The Court
will address the non-dispositive and discovery motions (ECF 20; ECF 27; ECF 28)
in separate orders.
At this time there is no TRO in place. Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS
that Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Modify Temporary Restraining Order (ECF
9); Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion and Amended Emergency Motion to Extend TRO
(ECF 24; ECF 25) and Defendant’s Motion to Vacate TRO (ECF 26) be DENIED
AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s Application for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF 2) remains
pending.
The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the memorandum and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on July 10, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:26-cv-05000 Document 42 Filed 07/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2