Order — Airboss Defense Group v. United States, No. 24-365 (Court of Federal Claims, June 26, 2024)

Summary

Order in the United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-365, filed June 26, 2024, in a case captioned Airboss Defense Group, LLC, plaintiff, and String King Lacrosse LLC, plaintiff-intervenor, v. United States, with New York Embroidery Studio as defendant-intervenor. Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor each filed a motion on June 25, 2024, for leave to file a reply in support of plaintiff-intervenor's application for a temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor assert good cause because the government's supplemental response relied on new factual documentation and arguments. The government does not object and defendant-intervenor does object. The order grants the motions and directs re-filing of the replies as separate docket entries.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 24-365

 (Filed: June 26, 2024)

AIRBOSS DEFENSE GROUP, LLC,

Plaintiff,

          and

STRING KING LACROSSE LLC,

                       Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

          and

NEW YORK EMBROIDERY
STUDIO, INC.

Defendant-Intervenor.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On June 25, 2024, plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor each filed a motion for leave to file a
reply in support of plaintiff-intervenor’s application for a temporary restraining order and motion
for preliminary injunction.  ECF Nos. 66, 67.  Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor assert good cause
exists for filing their replies given that the government’s supplemental response relied on new
factual documentation and arguments to which plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor should have an
opportunity to respond.  ECF No. 66 at 1-2; ECF No. 67 at 2.

Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor indicate they have conferred with counsel for the
government and defendant-intervenor, and that while the government does not object to the filing
of these replies, defendant-intervenor does object.  ECF No. 66 at 2; ECF No. 67 at 1.

Case 1:24-cv-00365-PSH     Document 69     Filed 06/26/24     Page 1 of 2

2

For good cause shown, plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor’s motions for leave to file their
replies are GRANTED.  Accordingly, plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor are DIRECTED to re-
file their replies as separate docket entries.

It is so ORDERED.

s/ Charles F. Lettow

Charles F. Lettow

Senior Judge

Case 1:24-cv-00365-PSH     Document 69     Filed 06/26/24     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.uscfc.49493.69.0.pdf

Size

101,112 bytes

SHA-256

13c50600f49af28faa4bb6ef50770a7e9a8ecc7b247e49836a0fc8c2f2a7f121

Our copy

gov.uscourts.uscfc.49493.69.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)