Quinteros v. Nguyen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
VICTOR QUINTEROS,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-5168
DANNY NGUYEN, DANNY
NGUYEN COUTURE, AND
HLOYAL MANAGEMENT & PR,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending 	before 	the 	Court1 	is 	pro 	se 	Plaintiff 	Victor 	Quintanilla’s
(“Plaintiff”) Emergency Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction. 	(ECF No. 3). 	For the reasons stated below, the
Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED AS MOOT.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this trademark infringement action
against Defendants Danny Nguyen, Danny Nguyen Courture, and Hloyal
Management & PR (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges
that he is the owner and registrant of the trademark “Houston Fashion Week”
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 8).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-05168 Document 9 Filed 07/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
and asserts claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition based
on Defendants’ alleged use of the phrase “Fashion Week Houston.” (Id.).
On June 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for an Ex Parte
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). 	(ECF No. 3). 	Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
scheduled a five-night runway production from June 24 through June 28, 2026,
and that Defendants were improperly using a mark similar to Plaintiff’s
trademark for the event. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff requested that the Court enjoin
Defendants, their marketing networks, and venue partners from using the
phrases “Fashion Week Houston” or “Houston Fashion Week” from June 24
through June 28, 2026. (Id.).
II. 	Legal Standard
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor,
and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 	See Tex. Midstream Gas
Servs., 	LLC 	v. 	City 	of 	Grand 	Prairie, 	608 	F.3d 	200, 	206 	(5th 	Cir.
2010) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 21 (2008)). 	The
plaintiff has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence to justify the grant
of a preliminary injunction. See PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co.,
Case 4:26-cv-05168 Document 9 Filed 07/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

418 F.3d 535, 546 (5th Cir. 2005). “A preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy which should only be granted if the movant has clearly
carried his burden of persuasion on all four factors.” ADT, LLC v. Cap.
Connect, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 671, 681 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (citing Miss. Power &
Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985)).
The decision to grant or deny an injunction is “left to the sound discretion of
the district court.” Id. (citing Miss. Power & Light Co., 760 F.2d at 621).
“Ex parte temporary restraining orders are no doubt necessary in certain
circumstances, but under federal law they should be restricted to serving their
underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable
harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc.
v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415
U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (internal citation omitted). Like a preliminary injunction, a
temporary restraining order requires the movant to show the four elements
mentioned above. Albright v. City of New Orleans, 46 F. Supp. 2d 523, 532
(E.D. La. 1999).
Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of
federal courts to actual cases and controversies. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.
“If an intervening circumstance deprives a plaintiff of a personal stake in the
outcome of the action or makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual
3
Case 4:26-cv-05168 Document 9 Filed 07/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
relief whatever to the prevailing party, the case must be dismissed as moot.”
Payne v. Progressive Fin. Servs., Inc., 748 F.3d 605, 607 (5th Cir. 2014)
(citations omitted).
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot because the event Plaintiff
sought 	to 	enjoin 	has 	already 	occurred. 	Plaintiff’s 	motion 	alleges 	that
Defendants scheduled a five-night runway production from June 24 through
June 28, 2026, and requests that the Court immediately enjoin Defendants
from using “Fashion Week Houston” or “Houston Fashion Week” during that
period. 	(ECF No. 3). 	Because the June 24–28, 2026 dates have passed, the
Court can no longer provide the emergency relief requested by Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief no longer presents a live
controversy. See Payne, 748 F.3d at 607 (explaining that a claim is moot when
intervening circumstances make it impossible for the court to grant effective
relief). 	Plaintiff has likewise failed to show entitlement to a preliminary
injunction. The Court therefore recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied
as moot.
IV. 	Conclusion
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	Court 	RECOMMENDS 	Plaintiff’s
Emergency 	Motion 	for 	an 	Ex 	Parte 	Temporary 	Restraining 	Order 	and
Case 4:26-cv-05168 Document 9 Filed 07/23/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) be DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on July 23, 2025.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-05168 Document 9 Filed 07/23/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5