ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 11/7/2025. See attached document for full details.

First AMENDED COMPLAINT by CHUCHU WANG against The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, filed by CHUCHU WANG.

Second RESPONSE VErified Response to Omnibus Order ECF 6 by CHUCHU WANG.

附件：

1:Affidavit
2:Exhibit
3:Exhibit

PAPERLESS ORDER denying [10] Plaintiff's First Motion to Seal and Temporarily Proceed under Pseudonym. On October 22, 2025, the Court entered an Omnibus Order Regarding Schedule "A" Causes of Action ("Omnibus Order"), [ECF No. 6]. The Omnibus Order explains that "[m]otions to file documents under seal or to proceed anonymously or pseudonymously in these cases are disfavored by the Court," and any such motion will "be denied with leave to refile only after all the requirements of this Order have been complied with and only once the exceptional circumstances required to grant such a motion have been shown." Omnibus Order at 4-5. See Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) ("The operations of the courts. are matters of utmost public concern."); Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process."); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992) ("It is the exceptional case in which a plaintiff may proceed under a fictitious name."). On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed its First Motion for Leave to File Temporarily Redacted Verified Response, [ECF No. 7]. The Court DENIED this Motion, finding Plaintiff "fail[ed] to articulate exceptional circumstances necessitating the temporary sealing or redacting of its verified response," [ECF No. 8]. On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed its First Motion to Seal and Temporarily Proceed under Pseudonym, [ECF No. 10], which recycles the same arguments that Plaintiff made in its prior First Motion for Leave to File Temporarily Redacted Verified Response. The Court finds that Plaintiff still fails to articulate exceptional circumstances necessitating the temporary sealing of the court file or Plaintiff temporarily proceeding under a pseudonym. Accordingly, Plaintiff's First Motion to Seal and Temporarily Proceed under Pseudonym, [ECF No. 10], is DENIED, and Plaintiff shall file under its true party name on the public docket the remaining documents required by the Omnibus Order on or before November 5, 2025. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 11/4/2025.

Clerk's Notice to Filer re [10] First MOTION to Seal and to Temporarily proceed under Pseudonym per Local Rule 5.4. Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR - The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual.

First MOTION to Seal and to Temporarily proceed under Pseudonym per Local Rule 5.4 by XYZ Corporation.

附件：

1:Text of Proposed Order

First RESPONSE To Court's Omnibus Order ECF 6 by XYZ Corporation.

附件：

1:Affidavit
2:Exhibit
3:Exhibit

PAPERLESS ORDER denying [7] Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Temporarily Redacted Verified Response ("Motion"). On October 22, 2025, the Court entered an Omnibus Order Regarding Schedule "A" Causes of Action ("Order"), [ECF No. 6]. The Order requires Plaintiff to refile any previously pending motions within fourteen (14) days in compliance with the requirements of the Order. The Order also explains that "[m]otions to file documents under seal or to proceed anonymously or pseudonymously in these cases are disfavored by the Court," and any such motion will "be denied with leave to refile only after all the requirements of this Order have been complied with and only once the exceptional circumstances required to grant such a motion have been shown." Order at 4-5. See Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) ("The operations of the courts. are matters of utmost public concern."); Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process."); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992) ("It is the exceptional case in which a plaintiff may proceed under a fictitious name."). Accordingly, such motions shall be denied absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiff's Motion fails to articulate exceptional circumstances necessitating the temporary sealing or redacting of its verified response. Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 7], is thus DENIED. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 10/31/2025.

First MOTION for Leave to File Redacted Verified Response by XYZ Corporation.

附件：

1:Text of Proposed Order

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE "A" CAUSES OF ACTION. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 10/22/2025. See attached document for full details.

Notice of Compliance of Filing Fee $405.00, receipt number AFLSDC-18888361, Electronic Civil Case Filing re [4] Clerk's Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case

Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent.

COMPLAINT against The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A. Filing fees $ 405.00. IFP Filed, filed by XYZ Corporation.

附件：

1:Civil Cover Sheet