{"cached_at":"2026-10-17T10:42:54.149995+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71292129","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","id":71292129,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nyed/","court_id":"nyed","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9425/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2025-09-08T08:42:01.396885-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-06T14:50:05.159895-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Ramon E. Reyes Jr.","referred_to_str":"Clay H. Kaminsky","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-09-08","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-06","case_name_short":"Kurt","case_name":"Kurt v. Ou","case_name_full":"","slug":"kurt-v-ou","docket_number":"1:25-cv-05017","docket_number_core":"2505017","docket_number_raw":"1:25-cv-05017","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"RER","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"CHK","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"536034","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-09-08T08:42:01.389109-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20170531/","id":20170531,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10934730/","attorney_id":10934730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10934730/","attorney_id":10934730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.742221-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.742234-07:00","name":"Alan Jacobs","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20170530/","id":20170530,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10934730/","attorney_id":10934730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10934730/","attorney_id":10934730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.680307-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.680318-07:00","name":"Lun Feng","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20170529/","id":20170529,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10934730/","attorney_id":10934730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10934730/","attorney_id":10934730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.649923-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.649935-07:00","name":"Bin Wang","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20170528/","id":20170528,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10934730/","attorney_id":10934730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10934730/","attorney_id":10934730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.582133-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.582144-07:00","name":"Ruifeng Guo","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20170527/","id":20170527,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.535593-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T11:14:52.535602-07:00","name":"The Benchmark Company, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734071/","id":16734071,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.614607-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.614622-08:00","name":"Helena Lindberg","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734070/","id":16734070,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.561746-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.561759-08:00","name":"Ara Ainadin Zarei","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734069/","id":16734069,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13597095/","attorney_id":13597095,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13597095/","attorney_id":13597095,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.504663-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.504674-08:00","name":"Ringkallens Holding AB","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734068/","id":16734068,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13597095/","attorney_id":13597095,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13597095/","attorney_id":13597095,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.460670-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.460685-08:00","name":"Fredrik Melin","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734067/","id":16734067,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905695/","attorney_id":10905695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.397594-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.397611-08:00","name":"Tarun Sethi","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734066/","id":16734066,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905695/","attorney_id":10905695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.342059-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.342079-08:00","name":"Per-Olaf Keitsch","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734065/","id":16734065,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905695/","attorney_id":10905695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.274486-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:03:00.274501-08:00","name":"Kristian Wulff","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734064/","id":16734064,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905695/","attorney_id":10905695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.918346-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.918363-08:00","name":"Corrado Tavelli","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734063/","id":16734063,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905694/","attorney_id":10905694,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.796494-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.796511-08:00","name":"Ellis Reinblatt","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734062/","id":16734062,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905693/","attorney_id":10905693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10686904/","attorney_id":10686904,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.645316-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.645330-08:00","name":"Jan Lindberg","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734061/","id":16734061,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10686904/","attorney_id":10686904,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.548132-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.548146-08:00","name":"Stanley Eng","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734060/","id":16734060,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10686904/","attorney_id":10686904,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.451803-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.451820-08:00","name":"Marina Mazzeo","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734059/","id":16734059,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905692/","attorney_id":10905692,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905692/","attorney_id":10905692,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.358654-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.358671-08:00","name":"Kenneth Zalba","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16734058/","id":16734058,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10905691/","attorney_id":10905691,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.148010-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T13:02:59.148024-08:00","name":"Fly-E Investor Group","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16658072/","id":16658072,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10863922/","attorney_id":10863922,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","docket_id":71292129,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-10T08:03:18.549812-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-10T08:03:18.549825-08:00","name":"Matteo Lazzaretti","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480716994/","id":480716994,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496430497/","id":496430497,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-06T14:50:05.262642-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-06T14:50:05.262655-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Pre Motion Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-06T14:50:05.249263-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-06T14:50:05.249278-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-06","time_filed":"17:45:28","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480536312/","id":480536312,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496244623/","id":496244623,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/70/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-10-05T12:11:08.488278-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T12:11:08.506056-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"70","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-05T12:11:08.460826-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T12:11:08.473762-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-05","time_filed":"15:05:43","entry_number":70,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479702708/","id":479702708,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495374513/","id":495374513,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/69/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-09-28T17:30:32.453420-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T17:30:32.463403-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"69","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Pre Motion Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-28T17:30:32.415236-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T17:30:32.426193-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-28","time_filed":"20:25:00","entry_number":69,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478410339/","id":478410339,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494035227/","id":494035227,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-17T12:55:23.501596-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T12:55:23.501622-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Dismissing Parties","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-17T12:55:23.487817-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-17T12:55:23.487838-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-17","time_filed":"15:45:19","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477971317/","id":477971317,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493584629/","id":493584629,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/68/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-09-14T21:24:37.874554-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T20:49:09.308633-07:00","sha1":"20a35be57d724712b90e06a240be0868fdb3590f","page_count":4,"file_size":129960,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034.68.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034.68.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\nDINO KURT, Individually and on Behalf of All\nOthers Similarly Situated, Case No. 1:25-cv-05017-RER-CHK\n\n Plaintiff, NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY\n DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS THE\n v. BENCHMARK COMPANY, LLC, BIN\n WANG, ALAN JACOBS, AND LUN\nFLY-E GROUP, INC., ZHOU OU, and SHIWEN FENG\nFENG,\n\n Defendants.\n\f PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A),\n\nLead Plaintiffs Fredrik Melin and Ringkallens Holding AB, (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) hereby voluntarily\n\ndismiss Defendants The Benchmark Company, LLC, Bin Wang, Alan Jacobs and Lun Feng, from\n\nthis lawsuit without prejudice. These parties have not served an answer or moved for summary\n\njudgment. The purported Class has not been certified. As such, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41\n\ncontrols the dismissal of Defendants The Benchmark Company, LLC, Bin Wang, Alan Jacobs and\n\nLun Feng.\n\n Plaintiffs preserve all claims against the remaining Defendants in this action.\n\n\n\n\nDated: September 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n POMERANTZ LLP\n\n By: /s/ Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n\n Joshua B. Silverman\n (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n (pro hac vice)\n 10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505\n Chicago, Illinois 60603\n Tel: (312) 377-1181\n Fax: (312) 229-8811\n jbsilverman@pomlaw.com\n boconnell@pomlaw.com\n\n Jeremy A. Lieberman\n J. Alexander Hood II\n James M. LoPiano\n 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n Tel: (212) 661-1100\n Fax: (212) 661-8665\n jalieberman@pomlaw.com\n ahood@pomlaw.com\n jlopiano@pomlaw.com\n\n\n 1\n\f Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs\n\n KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.\n Michael K. Yarnoff\n 2001 Market Street\n Suite 2500\n Philadelphia, PA 19103\n Tel: (215) 792-6676\n myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com\n\n Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs\n\n\n\n\n2\n\f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on September 15, 2026, a copy of the foregoing was filed\n\nelectronically via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all\n\nparties by operation of the Court\u2019s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through\n\nthe Court\u2019s CM/ECF System.\n\n\n\n\n Dated: September 15, 2026\n\n POMERANTZ LLP\n\n By: /s/ Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-20T13:02:12.688585-07:00","document_number":"68","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Voluntary Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T21:24:37.828086-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T21:24:37.848181-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":"00:15:41","entry_number":68,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477949695/","id":477949695,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493561452/","id":493561452,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/67/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-09-14T16:00:22.942459-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T16:18:41.367344-07:00","sha1":"9c80f37c970a50efb1de244f2594bff54ae02e43","page_count":47,"file_size":542163,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034.67.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034.67.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\nDINO KURT, Individually and on Behalf of All\nOthers Similarly Situated, Case No. 1:25-cv-05017-RER-CHK\n\n Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT\n FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL\n v. SECURITIES LAWS\n\nFLY-E GROUP, INC., ZHOU OU, and SHIWEN CLASS ACTION\nFENG,\n Demand For Jury Trial\n Defendants.\n\f TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\nINTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1\n\nJURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................................6\n\nParties ...............................................................................................................................................6\n\nSubstantive Allegations ...................................................................................................................8\n\n I. Factual Background .......................................................................................................8\n\n A. 2018-2021: Fly-E is Founded and Grows Amid a Food Delivery Boom in Big\n Cities ........................................................................................................................8\n\n B. (2022-September 2023): Demand for Electric Micromobility Vehicles Continues\n to Increase but Widespread Fires and Safety Concerns Lead to Regulatory\n Enforcement of the Industry ..................................................................................10\n\n C. Fly-E Did Not Comply with UL Certification Law, But States Otherwise ...........14\n\n II. False and Misleading Statements in the Registration Statement .................................16\n\n III. Additional False and Misleading Statements During the Class Period .......................20\n\n IV. Additional Allegations of Scienter...............................................................................30\n\n A. Defendants Admitted Having Access to the Information Concealed from Investors\n ................................................................................................................................30\n\n B. That the Misrepresentations Concerned the Core Operations of the Company\n Bolsters an Inference of Scienter ...........................................................................31\n\n C. That Defendants Certified Fly-E\u2019s Annual and Quarterly Filings to Investors\n Bolsters Scienter ....................................................................................................32\n\n D. The Company\u2019s Precarious Position Supports an Inference of Fraud ...................33\n\n E. The Widespread Resignations Among Senior Officers and Board Members at the\n Company Support Scienter ....................................................................................34\n\n V. Corrective Events .........................................................................................................34\n\nPLAINTIFFS\u2019 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................36\n\n\n i\n\fCOUNT I (Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated\nThereunder Against All Defendants) .............................................................................................38\n\nCOUNT II (Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act Against Defendants Ou, Guo, and\nShiwen Feng) .................................................................................................................................41\n\nPRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................43\n\nDEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY ...............................................................................................43\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Lead Plaintiffs Fredrik Melin (\u201cMelin\u201d) and Ringkallens Holding AB, (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d)\n\nindividually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, by their undersigned attorneys,\n\nallege in this Complaint for violations of the federal securities laws (the \u201cComplaint\u201d) the\n\nfollowing based upon knowledge with respect to their own acts, and upon facts obtained through\n\nan investigation conducted by their counsel, which included, inter alia: (a) review and analysis of\n\nrelevant filings made by Fly-E Group, Inc. (\u201cFly-E\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d) with the United States\n\nSecurities and Exchange Commission (the \u201cSEC\u201d); (b) review and analysis of Fly-E\u2019s public\n\ndocuments, press releases, and stock chart; (c) review of Company admissions from other litigation\n\nconcerning the safety and design of Company products; (d) review of government safety data and\n\nviolation databases that concern the Company and its retail stores; (e) analysis of securities news\n\narticles and advisories concerning the Company; and (f) information readily obtainable on the\n\ninternet.\n\n Plaintiffs believe that further substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations\n\nset forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. Most of the facts supporting the\n\nallegations contained herein are known only to the Defendants or are exclusively within their\n\ncontrol.\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n 1. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or\n\notherwise acquired Fly-E\u2019s common stock between June 6, 2024, and August 14, 2025, both dates\n\ninclusive (\u201cClass Period\u201d), asserting claims against Defendants Fly-E, Zhou (Andy) Ou (\u201cOu\u201d),\n\nRuifeng (Steven) Guo (\u201cGuo\u201d), and Shiwen Feng, (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d) for violations of\n\nSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (\u201cExchange Act\u201d), and SEC Rule\n\n10b-5 promulgated thereunder.\n\n\n\n 1\n\fExcluded from the Class are: Defendants, former and current officers, senior managers, and\n\ndirectors of Fly-E, any entity in which any of the Defendants (alone or in combination with other\n\nDefendants) have or had a 10% or higher interest, and any affiliates, related entities, joint ventures,\n\nfamily members, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any of the above; or any\n\nperson who acquired shares via conversion of an interest in or obligation of Fly-E that existed prior\n\nto June 6, 2024, with respect to such shares.\n\n 2. Fly-E operates primarily as a seller of electric micromobility vehicles purchased\n\nfrom Chinese manufacturers and rebranded as Fly E-bike EVs (electric vehicles). The electric\n\nmicromobility vehicles include electric bikes (\u201ce-bikes\u201d), electric scooters (\u201ce-scooters\u201d) and\n\nelectric motorcycles (\u201ce-motorcycles\u201d). During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for\n\nfood delivery and packaged goods delivery skyrocketed, leading to a surge in demand for delivery\n\nworkers, specifically in big cities. New York, for example, where the majority of Fly-E\u2019s stores\n\noperate, now has approximately 65,000 food delivery workers.\n\n 3. In order to meet demand for e-bikes and other electric micromobility vehicles,\n\nunscrupulous sellers rushed these products to production with known safety defects, and without\n\nconducting safety engineering known to be necessary. As a result, battery fires increased at an\n\nexponential and alarming rate, often while the lithium-ion battery is charging.\n\n 4. As a result of these widespread fires, New York and other jurisdictions adopted\n\nlaws for the safe use of batteries. In particular, New York City adopted laws requiring that electric\n\nmicromobility vehicles be certified in the Underwriters Laboratories (\u201cUL\u201d) safety standards. UL\n\nis an independent safety science organization that tests products for risks such as fire, electric\n\nshock, overheating, and battery failure.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f 5. Once the laws went into effect, New York City began vigorously enforcing\n\ncompliance with these safety standards, fining the Company dozens of times for failing to comply.\n\nInstead of complying with requirements, the Company misrepresented its compliance, including\n\nby use of counterfeit UL Certification marks (\u201cUL Certification Marks\u201d) in marketing its electric\n\nbikes, motorcycles and scooters.\n\n 6. Defendants knew all of this information but decided to omit it when peddling\n\nshares to investors for their June 6, 2024 initial public offering (\u201cIPO\u201d). Instead, the registration\n\nstatement and prospectus incorporated therein that Defendants used for the IPO (collectively,\n\n\u201cRegistration Statement\u201d) said that they were in compliance with all applicable safety standards,\n\nthat they expected regulations to be a \u201ctailwind to our growth,\u201d and that they were \u201cprincipally\n\nengaged\u201d in designing their own products. See Paragraphs 51, 57, 69, 79, infra. The Registration\n\nStatement also hid Fly-E\u2019s chronic failure to comply with safety regulations and its use of\n\ncounterfeit UL Certification Marks (\u201cCounterfeit UL Certification Marks\u201d), as well as the\n\nCompany\u2019s known failure of control over the manufacturing or design of its products. Indeed, in\n\na products liability action, multiple senior employees of the Company testified that the Company\n\nwas not a manufacturer, did not design the e-bikes, e-motorcycles, or e-scooters, and that its bikes\n\narrived at its facility 90% preassembled from third-party factories overseas, the exact opposite of\n\nwhat the Registration Statement conveyed.\n\n 7. About two months after the Company went public, it and certain individual\n\nDefendants made additional false statements regarding Fly-E\u2019s safety compliance, that Fly-E\u2019s\n\ngrowth was the result of the Company\u2019s supposed innovation, and product design. For example,\n\non August 9, 2024, Defendant Ou falsely confirmed in a press release that \u201c[a]ll of our lineup of\n\ne-bikes feature UL-certified lithium batteries for safety,\u201d hiding the rampant use of Counterfeit\n\n\n\n 3\n\fUL Certification Marks as well as the scores of violations received for failure to comply with the\n\nlaw requiring UL Certification. On August 16, 2024, the Company stated in its Quarterly Report\n\nthat, despite then-pervasive and internally-known violations, \u201cthe Company believes it is in\n\ncompliance with the relevant regulations in the U.S.\u201d The Company also continued to tout its\n\nsupposed growth due to the Company\u2019s \u201ccommitment to innovation,\u201d withholding that it was\n\nbuilt on failing to comply with the law, and repeating false statements that regulations were a\n\n\u201ctailwind\u201d to growth when it knew them to be an impediment.\n\n 8. Defendants herein also knowingly misled investors about the Company\u2019s safety\n\ncompliance, supposed innovative technology, and whether Fly-E actually designed or\n\nmanufactured its products. As confirmed by (1) deposition testimony in a products liability action\n\nand in (2) separate admissions in a consent judgment with UL in which Fly-E and its senior\n\nofficers agreed they had reason to know they were using Counterfeit UL Certification Marks,\n\nDefendants were aware that Fly-E lacked authorization to use UL Certification Marks.\n\nDefendants also knew about safety problems with the lithium batteries used in Fly-E vehicles\n\nfrom the dozens of violations received from New York City regulators.\n\n 9. Defendants also knowingly trumpeted Fly-E as an innovative electric\n\nmicromobility vehicle company when, in reality, Fly-E primarily resold preassembled non-\n\ncompliant Chinese-made products while concealing widespread regulatory violations. Defendants\n\nOu, and Fly-E\u2019s two CFOs during the Class Period, Steven Guo and Shiwen Feng, reinforced\n\nthese misrepresentations by signing misleading SEC filings and false Sarbanes-Oxley\n\ncertifications. The allegations of fraud are further supported by the fact that the misrepresentations\n\nconcerned the Company\u2019s core operation of selling electric micromobility vehicles. The inference\n\nof scienter is also bolstered by Fly-E\u2019s worsening financial condition and dependence on capital\n\n\n\n 4\n\fraises to survive, as well as by the wave of resignations by senior officers and directors shortly\n\nafter disclosures about battery fires and regulatory problems.\n\n 10. On May 28, 2025, after the stock market had closed, the Company disclosed in a\n\nForm 8-K filing that it had entered into a settlement agreement with UL, in which the Company\n\nagreed to pay UL $1,000,000 and entered into a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction and\n\n\u201cagreed not to offer for sale, sell, or distribute products with UL Marks that were not tested and\n\ncertified by UL.\u201d On this news, the Company\u2019s stock price dropped 9.59% the next trading day,\n\nclosing at $44.30.1\n\n 11. On August 14, 2025, Fly-E filed with the SEC an NT 10-Q notice on Form 12b-\n\n25 conceding its inability to timely file its Quarterly Report for the first quarter of fiscal year\n\n2026. The filing revealed a significant 32% decrease in Fly-E\u2019s net revenue compared to the same\n\nperiod in 2024. Notably, Fly-E stated that the primary driver for the revenue decrease was a\n\ndecline of \u201ctotal units sold\u201d as customers were less inclined to purchase e-bikes due to an\n\n\u201cincreasing number of lithium battery explosion incidents in New York.\u201d\n\n 12. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Fly-E\u2019s revelation. The price of Fly-\n\nE\u2019s common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $155.20 per share on\n\nAugust 14, 2025, Fly-E\u2019s stock price fell to close at $20 per share on August 15, 2025, a decline\n\nof more than 87% in the span of just a single day. The stock continued to drop the next trading\n\nday, closing at $16.02 on August 18, 2025.\n\n 13. Fly-E shares now trade at less than 1% of the IPO price. As a result of the deceptive\n\nacts and omissions alleged herein, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the\n\n\n1\n The stock prices reflected herein account for the 1 for 5 reverse stock split on July 7, 2025 and 1\nfor 20 reverse stock split on November 4, 2025. The unadjusted trading price at the time was\n1/100th of the listed price after accounting for the stock splits.\n\n 5\n\fCompany\u2019s securities as a result of the partial disclosures and/or materializations of the concealed\n\nrisks, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.\n\n JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 14. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to \u00a7\u00a7 10(b) and 20(a) of\n\nthe Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 78j(b), and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by\n\nthe SEC (17 C.F.R. \u00a7 240.10b-5).\n\n 15. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action pursuant to \u00a7 27\n\nof the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78aa).\n\n 16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to \u00a7 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n78aa) and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1391(b). Many of the acts giving rise to the violations complained of\n\nherein, including the dissemination of false and misleading information, occurred in this\n\nDistrict. Fly-E has its principal place of business in this District and Defendants committed\n\ntortious acts and transacted business in this District.\n\n 17. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint,\n\nDefendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce,\n\nincluding but not limited to, the United States mail, interstate telephone communications and the\n\nfacilities of the national securities markets.\n\n Parties\n\n 18. Plaintiffs, as set forth in their previously filed declaration (ECF No. 20-6) acquired\n\nthe Company\u2019s common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and were\n\ndamaged as a result of the federal securities law violations alleged herein.\n\n 19. Fly-E is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 136-\n\n4- 39th Avenue, Suite 202, Flushing, New York 11354. At all relevant times, the Company\u2019s\n\n\n\n 6\n\fcommon stock traded on the NASDAQ Capital Market (the \u201cNASDAQ\u201d) under the symbol\n\n\u201cFLYE.\u201d\n\n 20. Defendant Ou was, at all relevant times, the Chief Executive Officer of Fly-E. Ou\n\nsigned Fly-E\u2019s Registration Statement and its Annual and Quarterly Reports filed with the SEC\n\non Form 10-K, and Form 10-Q. Ou also certified that the financial information in these filings\n\nwas accurate and that the filings did not contain any untrue statement of material fact.\n\n 21. Defendant Guo served as Chief Financial Officer from December, 2022 until\n\nNovember 6, 2024. Guo signed Fly-E\u2019s Registration Statement and the Company\u2019s Quarterly\n\nReport filed with the SEC on Form 10-Q on August 16, 2024. Guo also certified that the financial\n\ninformation in the August 16, 2024 Form 10-Q was accurate and that it did not contain any untrue\n\nstatement of material fact. Guo also served on the board of directors of Fly-E.\n\n 22. Defendant Shiwen Feng served as Chief Financial Officer from November 7, 2024\n\nuntil August 20, 2025. Shiwen Feng signed Fly-E\u2019s Annual and Quarterly Reports filed with the\n\nSEC on Form 10-K on July 15, 2025, and on Form 10-Q on November 19, 2024. Shiwen Feng\n\nalso certified that the financial information in the July 15, 2025 Form 10-K and the November\n\n19, 2024 Form 10-Q was accurate and that these filings did not contain any untrue statement of\n\nmaterial fact.\n\n 23. The Defendants possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Fly-\n\nE\u2019s SEC filings, press releases, and/or other market communications, and exercised that authority\n\nin the course of their day-to-day conduct. Because of their positions with Fly-E, their access to\n\nmaterial information available to them but not to the public, and their day-to-day responsibilities,\n\nthe Defendants knew that the adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to and were\n\nbeing concealed from the investing public, and that the representations being made were\n\n\n\n 7\n\fmaterially false and misleading and omitted to state material facts. Additionally, the Defendants\n\n(Ou and Guo), in signing the Registration Statement, understood that they were liable to investors\n\nfor any misrepresentations and omissions therein unless they made a reasonable investigation,\n\nand had the ability to make such investigation, which would necessarily have exposed them to\n\nthe material information contradicting the statements to investors made therein.\n\n Substantive Allegations\n\n I. Factual Background\n\n A. 2018-2021: Fly-E is Founded and Grows Amid a Food Delivery Boom in Big Cities\n 24. Fly-E Group, Inc., and with its subsidiaries is an electric micromobility vehicle\n\ncompany that is principally engaged in selling e-motorcycles, e-bikes, e-scooters and related\n\naccessories under the brand \u201cFly E-Bike.\u201d\n\n 25. The Company\u2019s first store opened in 2018 in New York. Shortly after its IPO, the\n\nCompany had 39 stores in the United States and one in Canada. As of June, 2024, the Company\n\noffered 21 e-bike products, 34 e-scooter products, and 21 e-motorcycle products. At the time of\n\nthe IPO, 28 of its United States stores were in New York (over 70%). Each store operates as its\n\nown subsidiary. The Company was thus heavily reliant and dependent on compliance with New\n\nYork laws and regulations.\n\n 26. Founded by a former food deliverer, the Company focused on serving food\n\ndelivery workers as well as urban commuters. All vehicles were branded at the Company\u2019s single\n\nBrooklyn, New York facility.\n\n 27. Although Fly-E tells investors that it is \u201cprincipally engaged in designing\u201d two-\n\nwheeled electric vehicles, it actually is principally engaged in reselling goods designed by and\n\npurchased from Chinese manufacturers and rebranded as Fly-E electric micromobility vehicles.\n\nThis was admitted in depositions of senior officers in a products liability lawsuit in the state of\n\n 8\n\fTexas, which Defendants did not disclose to investors during the Class Period, and the deposition\n\ntranscripts were not publicly available. Farrow v. Fly E-Bike, et al., No 2023-35007 (Harris\n\nCounty, Texas). As Fly-E\u2019s technology support manager, E Junchao (\u201cJunchao\u201d) testified in his\n\ndeposition when asked if bikes arrive from China assembled, he answered \u201c\u202690 percent of it\n\n[sic] basically have been put together or assembled by the [outside] manufacturers. And when we\n\nreceive them [] there is a small part of the accessories that we need to put on, then it will work.\u201d\n\nDeposition of E Junchao 9:9-16, July 10, 2024, Farrow v. Fly E-Bike, et al., No. 2023-35007\n\n(District of Harris County, Texas) (\u201cJunchao Dep.\u201d). Junchao also admitted that the Company\n\nhad no manufacturing, either in the United States or in China, and when asked if \u201cFly E-Bike is\n\njust a simple resaler [sic],\u201d Junchao answered \u201cthat is correct.\u201d Junchao Dep. 103:14-104:3. In\n\nanother deposition that same day, Rui Feng, the Company\u2019s Chief Operating Officer, also\n\nconfirmed that 90 percent of the assembly takes place by outside manufacturers in China.\n\nDeposition of Rui Feng, 22:19-23:1, July 10, 2024, Farrow v. Fly E-Bike, et al., No. 2023-35007\n\n(District of Harris County, Texas) (\u201cRui Feng Dep.\u201d). Rui Feng also confirmed at his deposition\n\nthat, except in limited circumstances, the Company does not design its own bikes, motorcycles,\n\nscooters, or even accessories. Rui Feng Dep. 8:9-9:10.\n\n 28. The Company sought to market its electric micromobility vehicles to food\n\ndeliverers seeking cost-effective means of delivering food in densely populated areas. As the\n\nCompany explained in its Prospectus, with the rise of e-commerce and online shopping, more\n\npeople in New York City were relying on package deliveries for everyday needs, which could be\n\nserviced by electric micromobility vehicles. Fly-E\u2019s products were primarily powered by lithium-\n\nion batteries.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f B. (2022-September 2023): Demand for Electric Micromobility Vehicles Continues to\n Increase but Widespread Fires and Safety Concerns Lead to Regulatory\n Enforcement of the Industry\n\n 29. In the aftermath of COVID-19 restrictions, electric micromobility vehicles such\n\nas e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-motorcycles became increasingly popular. In fiscal year 2023\n\n(ending March 2023), the Company had produced over 2,000 e-motorcycles, 6,000 e-bikes, and\n\nmore than 2,000 scooters. Fly-E profited from this increase in demand: from fiscal year 2022 to\n\nfiscal year 2023, Fly-E\u2019s net revenue increased by 26.7%, and then increased again by 47.9%\n\nyear-over-year in fiscal year 2024. Meanwhile, its gross margin percentage increased from 18.9%,\n\nto 38.1%, and then to 40.7%, in fiscal years 2022-2024, respectively.\n\n 30. Approximately 65,000 delivery workers live in New York City, many of whom\n\nrely on electric micromobility vehicles to make deliveries. In order to meet demand for such\n\nvehicles, unscrupulous sellers rushed these products to production without sufficient attention to\n\nkey safety details. As a result, battery fires increased at an exponential and alarming rate. While\n\nthese fires sometimes occur on routes, they more commonly happen while the lithium-ion battery\n\nis charging. In some cases, incompatible chargers fail to shut off once the battery is fully charged,\n\ncausing the battery to overheat.\n\n 31. In others, flammable electrolyte fluid leaks from the battery cells and ignites,\n\ntriggering a rapid chain reaction. Exploding e-bikes starting large fires became a significant safety\n\nconcern and attracted attention from news outlets as well as state and local regulators. For\n\nexample, in 2021 the New York Fire Department (at times \u201cFDNY\u201d), recorded 104 e-bike fires\n\nin 2021 versus 44 in 2020, with multiple deaths and injuries linked to lithium-ion batteries.2 In an\n\n\n\n2\n Jason Plautz, NYC Electric Bike Fires on Pace to Double in 2021, Smart Cities Dive (Nov. 10,\n2021), https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/cities-report-ebike-fires-micromobility-\nsafety/609516/ (\u201cPlautz\u201d); Greg B. Smith, Claudia Irizarry Aponte, Suhail Bhat and Rachel\n\n 10\n\fOctober 2021 press conference, FDNY Commissioner Daniel Nigro said the fires were a \u201cvery\n\nserious problem that keeps increasing.\u201d Plautz, supra at n.2. By 2022, e-bike battery fires were\n\noccurring approximately four times per week, with fires occurring most frequently when charging\n\novernight.3 Below is a chart detailing the increase in exploding battery fires in New York City on\n\na monthly basis from 2021 to early November 2022:\n\n\n\n\n 32. According to the FDNY, in 2022, there were at least 208 reported fires due to\n\noverheated battery fires that occurred during charging, resulting in 142 injuries and six deaths. 4\n\n\n\n\nHolliday Smith, Where and Why E-Bikes Catch Fire in NYC \u2014 And What Can Be Done About\nIt, THE CITY (Nov. 21, 2022), https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/11/21/ebikes-fires-lithium-ion-\nbatteries-delivery-workers\n3\n Smith, et al., supra n. 2.\n4\n Peter Charalambous, E-Bike Batteries Raise Safety Concerns Amid Rise in Fires: \u201cVery Hard to\nExamine,\u201d ABC News (Dec. 31, 2022, 4:15 AM), https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bike-\nbatteries-raise-safety-concerns-amid-rise-fires/story?id=95617246\n\n 11\n\fIn response to the increase in fires from electric micromobility vehicle batteries, residential\n\nbuildings began to ban them inside housing to stem the risk of fires.5\n\n 33. UL is an independent safety science organization that tests products for risks such\n\nas fire, electric shock, overheating, and battery failure. UL has been testing products and\n\nauthorizing use of the well-known UL Certification Marks on products that conform to applicable\n\nsafety standards in the United States since at least 1937. UL has registered the UL Service Mark\n\nand the UL Certification Marks in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal\n\nRegister. UL only allows manufacturers to affix its mark or to claim a product is UL-certified\n\nwhen it in fact has proved it meets the applicable safety standards specified by UL.\n\n 34. For e-bikes and other electric micromobility vehicles, UL standards focus heavily\n\non lithium-ion battery safety because defective batteries and chargers can overheat and enter\n\n\u201cthermal runaway,\u201d an uncontrollable, self-heating state that can lead to smoke, fire, or explosion.\n\nUL 2849 addresses the entire electrical system of an e-bike, including the battery, motor, charger,\n\nand wiring. UL issued its first certification of e-bikes under UL 2849 in 2020. UL 2272 addresses\n\ne-scooters, and similar personal mobility devices.\n\n 35. On December 20, 2022, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (\u201cCPSC\u201d)\n\nurged manufacturers and importers of e-bikes and other electric micromobility vehicles to comply\n\nwith UL safety standards, including UL 2849 for e-bikes and UL 2272 for e-scooters.6 The CPSC\n\n\n\n5\n Jennifer A. Kingson, Buildings Are Banning E-Bikes Amid Deadly Battery Fires, Axios (Nov.\n14, 2022), https://www.axios.com/2022/11/14/apartment-building-ban-e-bikes-battery-fire-\nmicromobility-scooter\n6\n Press Release, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC Calls on Manufacturers to\nComply with Safety Standards for Battery-Powered Products to Reduce the Risk of Injury and\nDeath (Dec. 20, 2022), https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2023/CPSC-Calls-on-\nManufacturers-to-Comply-with-Safety-Standards-for-Battery-Powered-Products-to-Reduce-the-\nRisk-of-Injury-and-Death.\n\n 12\n\fpress release warned that \u201cfailure to adhere to applicable UL safety standards ([] UL 2272\n\n\u2013 Standard for Electrical Systems for Personal E-Mobility Devices dated February 26, 2019, and\n\n[]UL 2849 \u2013 Standard for Safety for Electrical Systems for eBikes . . . and standards they\n\nincorporate by reference) may pose an unreasonable risk to consumers of fire and serious injury\n\nor death; and that compliance with the relevant UL standards \u2018significantly reduces the risk of\n\ninjuries and deaths from micromobility device fires.\u2019\u201d Id. (quoting CSPC letter to Manufacturers,\n\nImporters, Distributors, and Retailers of Micromobility Devices). Defendant Ou confirmed in his\n\ndeposition in the Harris County action that the Company had received this CPSC letter.\n\nDeposition of Zhou Ou, 61:22-63:15, July 10, 2024, Farrow v. Fly E-Bike, et al., No. 2023-35007\n\n(District of Harris County, Texas) (\u201cOu Dep.\u201d).\n\n 36. On March 3, 2023, the New York City Council passed Initiative 663 mandating\n\nelectric micromobility vehicles to be certified by a third-party certification company to satisfy UL\n\n2849 and UL 2272 standards. N.Y.C. Admin. Code \u00a7 20-610 (2023),\n\n 37. As the City Council explained in its press release the day the law was approved,\n\n\u201c[i]n order to be legally sold, these devices and their storage batteries would be required to have\n\nbeen certified as meeting the applicable Underwriters Laboratories (UL) safety standards by an\n\naccredited testing laboratory.\u201d7 On March 20, 2023, then-Mayor Eric Adams signed the\n\nlegislative package into law (\u201cUL Certification Law\u201d).8 Any company selling, leasing or\n\n\n\n\n7\n N.Y.C. Council, Council Votes to Strengthen Fire Safety Related to E-Bikes and Lithium-Ion\nBatteries (Mar. 2, 2023), https://council.nyc.gov/press/2023/03/02/2361/\n8\n Mayor\u2019s Office of the City of N.Y.C., Mayor Adams Announces Plan to Combat Lithium-Ion\nBattery Fires, Promote Safe Electric Micromobility Usage (Mar. 20, 2023),\nhttps://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2023/03/mayor-adams-plan-combat-lithium-ion-\nbattery-fires-promote-safe-electric-micromobility.\n\n 13\n\fdistributing electric micromobility vehicles such as e-bikes or e-scooters in New York City had\n\nuntil September 16, 2023 to obtain certification.\n\n C. Fly-E Did Not Comply with UL Certification Law, But States Otherwise\n\n 38. Under the UL Certification Law, each violation was punished \u201c$150 for a first\n\nviolation, up to $250 for a second violation, and up to $350 for a third or subsequent violation.\u201d\n\nN.Y.C. Admin. Code \u00a7 20-610.1(e). And, \u201ceach day in which a violation continues constitutes a\n\nseparate violation.\u201d Id. Fly-E had not obtained certification for several of its electric\n\nmicromobility vehicles, but marketed these products in Fly-E\u2019s retail stores, on its website, and\n\nin social media pages as UL-certified when they were not.\n\n 39. On July 20, 2023, UL emailed Fly-E and Mr. Ou informing them of the\n\nunauthorized use of the UL Certification Marks on Fly-E\u2019s website and Instagram account. In\n\nresponse, an employee of Fly-E, Monica Xu, responded to UL\u2019s email agreeing to remove the UL\n\nCertification Marks from Fly-E\u2019s website, social media platforms, and retail stores \u201cin one week.\u201d\n\nHowever, the Company continued to display the Counterfeit UL Certification Marks without\n\nauthorization or UL certification.\n\n 40. On September 16, 2023, the UL Certification Law went into effect. Immediately,\n\nthe New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (\u201cDepartment of Consumer\n\nand Worker Protection\u201d) began issuing violations to the Company. That day, the Company and\n\nits retail stores received 13 Department of Consumer and Worker Protection notices, including\n\nsix specifically for selling vehicles without the required UL certification.9 These six UL\n\n\n9\n The data are available at https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Business/DCWP-Charges/5fn4-\ndr26/about_data. The other seven notices of violations included operating without required\nlicenses as a second-hand dealer (NYC Admin Code \u00a7 20\u2011412 and \u00a7 20-105) and failing to comply\nwith consumer protection rules by not properly displaying refund policies (6 RCNY \u00a7 5-37),\nservice price lists (6 RCNY \u00a7 5-70(a)), and total selling prices. NYC Admin Code \u00a7 20-708.\n\n 14\n\fCertification Law violation notices included 30 different charges, of which the Company pled\n\nguilty to ten of them.\n\n 41. Between September 2023 and December 2023, UL discovered additional signage\n\nat Defendants\u2019 retail stores in New York City and Forest Hills, New York, including FLY-E\u2019s\n\nretail store located on 4130 Broadway, claiming UL certification for electric micromobility\n\nvehicles that were not, in fact, certified, as shown below:\n\n\n\n\n 42. On September 19, 2023, UL emailed Monica Xu again requesting that Defendants\n\ncorrect their advertisements. On September 20, 2023, Monica Xu responded that he had directed\n\nthe store to remove the advertisements.\n\n 43. Meanwhile, widespread safety violations continued throughout the rest of 2023,\n\nwith the Company receiving 36 notices of violations of the UL Certification Law that year. These\n\nincluded 137 charges, of which the Company was found guilty of 61 violations.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f 44. The Company continued to receive UL Certification Law violation notices in the\n\nlead-up to its IPO, including 25 such notices between January and May 2024, for a total of 65\n\ncharges. Of these, the Company was found guilty of 51 violations.\n\n 45. As it was receiving these express violations, Defendants filed the Registration\n\nStatement with the SEC, consisting of an initial draft Form S-1 on February 2, 2024, amended on\n\nApril 4, 2024, April 22, 2024, and May 3, 2024, and by the final prospectus on Form 424(b)(4)\n\nfiled on June 5, 2024. As specified above, Fly-E was the issuer of the IPO shares pursuant to the\n\nRegistration Statement, and Defendants Ou and Guo signed the Registration Statement.\n\n 46. On June 6, 2024, Fly-E went public on the back of the false and misleading\n\nstatements in the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement expressly advised investors\n\nto avoid doing their own due diligence, and instead to rely solely on the misleading information\n\nprovided or incorporated into that document: \u201cNo dealer, salesperson or other person is authorized\n\nto give any information or to represent anything not contained in this prospectus. You must not\n\nrely on any unauthorized information or representations.\u201d10\n\n II. False and Misleading Statements in the Registration Statement\n\n 47. In the Registration Statement, Fly-E and the signing Defendants made the\n\nfollowing representation regarding the Company\u2019s compliance with local laws:\n\n The electric mobility industry is subject to rapidly changing and often complex\n regulatory environments.\n\n The electric mobility industry is subject to rapidly changing and often complex\n regulatory environments at local, state, national, and international levels. Evolving\n regulations related to safety standards, emissions, licensing, and operational\n requirements can have a substantial impact on our business operations and\n profitability. Compliance with these changing regulations may necessitate costly\n modifications to our products, business processes, or market strategies, which could\n lead to increased expenses and delays in product development and market entry.\n\n10\n Except as otherwise noted, all emphasis herein is supplied.\n\n 16\n\f Failure to navigate and adhere to evolving regulations adequately could result in\n legal and financial liabilities, damage to our reputation, and potential market\n restrictions. Furthermore, inconsistency in regulations between different\n jurisdictions may create challenges in maintaining uniform business practices and\n product offerings, increasing our exposure to regulatory risks. Furthermore, a\n significant portion of our customer base comprises food delivery workers, and if\n leading food delivery platforms like Uber Eats and DoorDash impose new\n requirements on the type of electric vehicles they allow, non-compliance on our\n part could result in the loss of these customers. While we believe we are presently\n in compliance with applicable laws and regulations in our operating regions,\n there can be no assurance that we can always promptly adapt to the rapidly\n changing regulatory environment. If we fail to effectively adjust to the changing\n regulatory landscape and comply with applicable laws and regulations in our\n operating regions, our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results\n would be materially and adversely affected.\n\n 48. The statements identified in Paragraph 47 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) the Company was not then in compliance with applicable\n\nlaws and regulations, including the UL Certification Law, and had received extensive notice of\n\nits violations; (b) the statements omitted that the Company was then marketing its products\n\ninaccurately as UL-certified at its stores and in its advertisements in violation of local regulations\n\nand federal trademark law; and, as a result of (a) and (b), (c) the Company had already incurred\n\nsignificant risk to its business as a result of these known violations.\n\n 49. The Registration Statement also made the following representation about UL\n\nCertification in its section on \u201cRegulation\u201d:\n\n In addition, some of our products may be subject to local laws and regulations. For\n instance, in March 2023, the New York City Council amended its administrative\n code to require that all powered bicycles, powered mobility devices including\n electric scooters, and storage batteries for such mobility devices distributed, sold,\n leased, rented, or offered for sale, lease, or rental in New York City must be\n certified as compliant with the applicable Underwriter Laboratories (UL)\n standard, which is a widely recognized standard for safety in electrical products\n in the United States. The law became effective in September 2023.\n\n 50. The statements identified in Paragraph 49 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because they omitted the following information necessary to make the\n\n\n 17\n\fstatements not misleading under the circumstances in which they were made: (a) that the\n\nCompany was not then complying with the UL Certification Law and had not fully complied with\n\nthe law since its inception; (b) that the Company had already received dozens of violation notices\n\nfor failing to comply with this law; (c) that the Company was then marketing its products\n\ninaccurately as UL-certified at its stores and in its advertisements in violation of local regulations\n\nand federal trademark law; and, as a result, (d) the Company\u2019s failure to comply with laws and\n\nregulations was already exposing its business to significant harm.\n\n 51. The Registration Statement also claimed that safety regulations would provide a\n\n\u201ctailwind\u201d to growth:\n\n Regulatory Landscape\n\n We operate in an industry that is subject to extensive environmental, safety and\n other laws and regulations, which include products safety and testing, as well as\n battery safety and disposal. These requirements create additional costs and\n possible production delay in connection with the testing and manufacturing of\n our products. We also benefit from environmental regulations in our target markets\n which include economic incentives to purchasers of EVs and tax credits for EV\n manufacturers. As such, while we expect environmental regulations to provide a\n tailwind to our growth, it is possible for other regulations to result in margin\n pressures.\n\n\n 52. The statements identified in Paragraph 51 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) regulatory requirements were a headwind rather than a\n\ntailwind because Fly-E was then not in compliance; (b) the statements omitted that the Company\n\nwas not then complying with applicable safety laws, including but not limited to the UL\n\nCertification Law; (c) the statements omitted that the Company\u2019s failure to comply with safety\n\nregulations already imperiled its ability to take advantage of the referenced environmental\n\nincentives.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f 53. The Registration Statement also said that the Company assembled all its products\n\nat one facility in Brooklyn, and stated as a \u201crisk factor\u201d that its success would depend on its ability\n\nto scale up manufacturing:\n\n Our success will depend on our ability to economically produce our vehicles at\n scale, and our ability to produce vehicles of sufficient quality and appeal to\n customers on schedule and at scale is unproven.\n\n Our business success will depend in large part on our ability to economically\n produce, market and sell our vehicles at sufficient capacity to meet the demands of\n our customers. We will need to scale our production capacity in order to\n successfully implement our growth strategy.\n We currently have one facility in which we assemble all of our products in\n Brooklyn, New York. We have no experience in large-scale production of our\n vehicles, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop efficient,\n automated, low-cost production capabilities and processes, such that we will be\n able to meet the quality, price and production standards, as well as the production\n volumes, required to successfully market our vehicles and meet our business\n objectives and customer needs. Any failure to develop and scale our production\n capability and processes could have a material adverse effect on our business,\n prospects, financial condition and operating results.\n\n 54. The statements identified in Paragraph 53 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) little if any actual assembly occurred in Brooklyn, rather, the\n\nelectric micromobility vehicles were purchased for resale from Chinese manufacturers; and (b)\n\nFly-E actually had no manufacturing facility of its own; and as a result, (c) Fly-E\u2019s ability to scale\n\nwas limited because at the time it had no manufacturing of its own.\n\n 55. The Registration Statement also included a representation that 49% of the\n\nCompany\u2019s component parts came from the United States:\n\n We source a significant portion of our vehicle components from China and the\n United States. For the nine months ended December 31, 2023, 51% and 49% of\n the parts were from China and the United States, respectively. For the years ended\n March 31, 2023 and 2022, over 40% and 80% of the parts were sourced from China,\n respectively. For the year ended March 31, 2023, we sourced over 50% of our\n vehicle components from the United States. Although we rely on certain principal\n\n\n\n 19\n\f vendors in China and the United States for most of our components, we believe\n there are multiple sources for each of our critical components.\n\n 56. The statements identified in Paragraph 55 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) little if any actual assembly occurred in Brooklyn, rather, the\n\nelectric micromobility vehicles were purchased for resale from Chinese manufacturers; (b) Fly-E\n\nactually had no manufacturing facility of its own; and, as a result, (c) the statements that it had\n\nsourced approximately 50% of its components from overseas was misleading because it suggested\n\nthat a significant portion of the manufacturing actually took place in the Company\u2019s facility, when\n\nit did not.\n\n 57. The Registration Statement also included a description of the Company in its\n\nBusiness Overview section, which emphasized that it was \u201cprincipally engaged in designing\u201d EVs:\n\n We are an electric vehicle (\u201cEV\u201d) company that is principally engaged in\n designing, installing and selling smart electric motorcycles (\u201cE-motorcycles\u201d),\n electric bikes (\u201cE-bikes\u201d), electric scooters (\u201cE-scooters\u201d) and related accessories\n under the brand \u201cFly E-Bike.\u201d At Fly E-Bike, our commitment is to encourage\n people to incorporate eco-friendly transportation into their active lifestyles,\n ultimately contributing towards building a more environmentally friendly future.\n\n 58. The statements identified in Paragraph 57 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) the statements omitted that the Company relied entirely on\n\nfully-assembled products purchased from Chinese manufacturers, or products whose assembly\n\nwas nearly complete when they arrived; and (b) Fly-E was not \u201cprincipally engaged in designing\u201d\n\nor even materially engaged in designing e-motorcycles, e-scooters, or e-bikes, as confirmed by\n\nRui Feng in his deposition in the Harris County matter.\n\n 59. None of the aforementioned misrepresentations and omissions was protected by\n\nthe safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d),\n\nbecause they fell outside the scope of the safe harbor provision.\n\n\n\n 20\n\f 60. Alternatively, even if otherwise within the scope of the safe harbor provision, the\n\nidentified misrepresentations and omissions were subject to an exception of the safe harbor\n\nprovision. According to the PSLRA, the safe harbor does not apply to statements \u201cmade in\n\nconnection with an initial public offering,\u201d see 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-5(b)(2)(D).\n\n III. Additional False and Misleading Statements During the Class Period\n\n 61. On Friday, August 9, 2024, after the market closed, the Company issued a press\n\nrelease in which it falsely boasted that its e-bikes were compliant with the UL Certification Law.\n\nDefendant Ou stated the following regarding the Company\u2019s participation in an E-bike trade-in\n\nprogram:\n\n \u201cSafety is our top priority, and we believe stringent measures are essential for\n building trust and fostering adoption. All of our lineup of e-bikes feature UL-\n certified lithium batteries for safety. We are now thrilled to introduce our new e-\n bike rental service. Our commitment is to provide a secure and enjoyable electric\n riding experience. We fully support NYC's safety initiatives and are dedicated to\n advancing electric vehicle safety standards. We are committed to offering cost-\n effective, high-performance electric bikes, promoting environmentally friendly\n travel, and contributing to the city's sustainable development.\u201d\n\n 62. The statements identified in Paragraph 61 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) safety was not then Fly-E\u2019s top priority, and it had been\n\nrepeatedly found in violation of key safety regulations; (b) all of Fly-E\u2019s lineup of bikes did not\n\n\u201cfeature UL-certified lithium batteries for safety\u201d; (c) the Company was not then committed to\n\n\u201cprovid[ing] a secure\u201d electric riding experience because it was selling unsafe products; (d) the\n\nCompany was not then \u201csupport[ing] NYC\u2019s safety initiatives\u201d but rather was thwarting them by\n\nfalsely labeling uncertified bikes as certified; (e) the statements omitted that the Company was\n\nnot in compliance with UL Certification Laws, which it was on notice of both from facing\n\nviolations from local regulators; and, as a result of (a)-(e), (f) the Company had then imperiled its\n\ncore operation by violating the most important regulation in its most important market.\n\n\n 21\n\f 63. On August 16, 2024, the Company filed its Quarterly Report for the quarter ending\n\nJune 30, 2024, the first quarter of its 2025 fiscal year (\u201cQ1 2025 Form 10-Q\u201d). Defendants Ou and\n\nGuo signed the filing, and both Ou and Guo certified that the financial information in the Q1 2025\n\nForm 10-Q was accurate and that the Q1 2025 Form 10-Q did not contain any untrue statement of\n\nmaterial fact.\n\n 64. The Q1 2025 Form 10-Q said under its \u201crecent developments\u201d section that the\n\nCompany had initiated rental services, which it represented would serve the demand for UL-\n\ncertified e-bikes:\n\n Rental Services\n\n The Company launched a new rental program to meet the increasing market\n demand for safe, UL-certified e-bikes in compliance with New York State\n regulations. The rental service is now available in New York City in select Fly E-\n Bike stores, offering users with a flexible and affordable e-bike rental option\n featuring the Fly-E Fly-11 Pro model. The Company is currently developing the\n GO FLY app, a mobile application designed for its rental services. As part of FLY-\n E\u2019s growth strategy, the Company plans to expand the rental service to Miami,\n Toronto, and Los Angeles shortly.\n\n 65. The statements identified in Paragraph 64 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) the Company\u2019s rental program did not involve \u201csafe, UL-\n\ncertified e-bikes in compliance with New York State regulations\u201d; (b) the statements omitted that\n\nthe Company was not then complying with the UL Certification Law, and had actual knowledge\n\nof this fact as a result of having been repeatedly found guilty of violating this law; and (c) the\n\nstatements omitted that the Company was then attempting to cover up its lack of certification by\n\nusing Counterfeit UL Certification Marks in violation of local regulations and federal trademark\n\nlaw.\n\n 66. Meanwhile the Company kept getting fined for failure to comply with the UL\n\nCertification Law. Between June and November, 2024, the Company received six notices of\n\n\n 22\n\fviolations, consisting of 15 violations, of which, the Company was found guilty of 14 of the\n\nviolations.\n\n 67. Despite repeated findings of fault for violating these provisions, Fly-E, Ou and Guo\n\nfalsely stated in the Q1 2025 Form 10-Q that \u201cthe Company believes it is in compliance with the\n\nrelevant regulations in the U.S.\u201d\n\n 68. The statements identified in Paragraph 67 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) the Company, which was found in violation of the UL\n\nCertification Law dozens of times, did not actually believe it was in compliance with relevant\n\nregulations; (b) the statements omitted that the Company was not then complying with the UL\n\nCertification Law; and (c) the Company was then utilizing Counterfeit UL Certification Marks in\n\nviolation of local regulations and federal trademark law.\n\n 69. Defendants Fly-E, Ou and Guo also boasted in the Q1 2025 Form 10-Q that safety\n\nregulations would provide a \u201ctailwind\u201d to growth:\n\n\n Regulatory Landscape\n We operate in an industry that is subject to extensive environmental, safety and\n other laws and regulations, which include products safety and testing, as well as\n battery safety and disposal. These requirements create additional costs and\n possible production delay in connection with the testing and manufacturing of\n our products. We also benefit from environmental regulations in our target\n markets which include economic incentives to purchasers of EVs and tax credits\n for EV manufacturers. The Governor of New York State signed a legislative\n package in July 2024 aimed at raising awareness about the safe use of e-bikes and\n lithium-ion battery products, prohibiting the sale of non-compliant batteries,\n requiring safety protocols and training for first responders, mandating operating\n manuals for e-bike retailers, and improving accident reporting and registration\n processes for e-bikes and mopeds. Additionally, in July 2025 [sic], the New York\n City Department of Transportation announced that it anticipated to launch a $2\n million trade-in program in early 2025, allowing eligible food delivery workers to\n replace their unsafe e-bikes, e-mobility devices, and batteries with certified, high-\n quality versions. While we expect relevant regulations to provide a tailwind to our\n growth, it is possible for other regulations to result in margin pressures.\n\n\n\n 23\n\f 70. The statements identified in Paragraph 69 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) regulatory requirements were a headwind rather than a\n\ntailwind because Fly-E was then not in compliance; (b) the statements omitted that the Company\n\nwas not then complying with applicable safety laws, including but not limited to the UL\n\nCertification Law; (c) the statements omitted that the Company\u2019s failure to comply with safety\n\nregulations already imperiled its ability to take advantage of the referenced environmental\n\nincentives.\n\n 71. Defendants Fly-E, Ou and Guo also falsely confirmed in their discussion of \u201crisk\n\nfactors\u201d in the Q1 2025 Form 10-Q that the e-bikes Fly-E rented were \u201csafe\u201d and \u201cUL-Certified,\u201d\n\nand that the risk was therefore limited to timing, scale and execution:\n\n Our planned rental service may not be successful.\n\n As we launch our new rental program to meet increasing market demand for\n safe, UL-certified e-bikes, our success will depend on several critical factors,\n including our ability to launch the rental services on time, effectively scale\n operations, manage supply chain logistics, secure necessary rental licenses,\n maintain the high-quality standards of our e-bikes, and successfully develop and\n deploy our mobile app for user access. Delays, challenges in obtaining or renewing\n rental licenses, difficulties in expanding the service to planned locations, or issues\n with the mobile app's performance and user experience, could adversely affect our\n brand, business, financial condition, and future prospects.\n\n 72. The statements identified in Paragraph 71 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) the e-bikes rented were not \u201cUL-certified\u201d; (b) the e-bikes\n\nrented were not \u201csafe\u201d; (c) the statements omitted that the Company was then routinely violating\n\nthe most important safety law in its most important market, and had already received dozens of\n\nviolation notices; and, as a result, (d) the rental program and e-bike sales as well were already\n\nimperiled by the Company\u2019s known safety deviations.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\f 73. On August 19, 2024, the Company issued a press release to announce its first\n\nquarter of 2025 results. In that press release, Ou trumpeted increased profits for the Company due\n\nto favorable prices for purchasing batteries:\n\n \u201cDespite the inflationary pressure and intense competition, we have managed to\n sustain steady expansion with a gross profit increase of 13.8%. Our uptick in\n financial performance reflects the strategic efforts we have undertaken to expand\n our market presence and enhance our product offerings. This growth has been\n driven by our commitment to innovation and customer satisfaction, as evidenced\n by the increase in our average sales price per EV. Also contributing to our gross\n profit increase is a decrease in our cost of revenue. We achieved this through\n continued cooperation with our suppliers which resulted in a more favorable\n price for the company when purchasing batteries. In addition, we witnessed\n significant increases in selling and general administrative expenses, primarily\n driven by the expansion of our retail stores and the strategic investments associated\n with our initial public offering, which increases were necessary to support our\n continued growth and the scaling of our operations, positioning us for future\n success. Looking forward, we are optimistic about our growth prospects and are\n committed to executing our business plan to achieve long-term success.\u201d\n\n 74. The statements identified in Paragraph 73 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) Fly-E achieved \u201ca more favorable price for the company when\n\npurchasing batteries\u201d not due to \u201ccontinued cooperation with [its] suppliers\u201d but rather by\n\npurchasing un-certified batteries and selling them as UL-certified; (b) the statements omitted that\n\nthe Company had already received dozens of violation notices for failing to comply with the UL\n\nCertification Law; and (c) the Company\u2019s growth was not \u201cdriven by our commitment to\n\ninnovation\u201d because the Company was not innovative but rather simply a reseller of electric\n\nmicromobility vehicles manufactured overseas, as confirmed by the deposition of Junchao.\n\n 75. On November 8, 2024, the Company announced that Defendant Guo had resigned\n\nas Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, and announced that Shiwen Feng would\n\nreplace Defendant Guo.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f 76. On November 19, 2024, the Company filed its Quarterly Report for the quarter\n\nending September 30, 2024 on Form 10-Q (\u201cQ2 2025 Form 10-Q\u201d). Defendants Ou and Shiwen\n\nFeng signed the filing, and both Ou and Shiwen Feng certified that the financial information in the\n\nQ2 2025 Form 10-Q was accurate and that the Q2 2025 Form 10-Q did not contain any untrue\n\nstatement of material fact.\n\n 77. In the Q2 2025 Form 10-Q, Defendants Fly-E, Ou and Shiwen Feng made the\n\nfollowing statements regarding Fly-E\u2019s \u201cUL-certified\u201d rental program:\n\n Rental Services\n\n The Company launched a new rental program to meet the increasing market\n demand for safe, UL-certified e-bikes in compliance with New York State\n regulations in October 2024. The rental service, available in New York City via\n the Go Fly rental service mobile app and select Fly E-Bike stores, provides users\n with a flexible and affordable e-bike rental option featuring the Fly-E Fly-11 Pro\n model. As part of FLY-E\u2019s growth strategy, the Company plans to expand the rental\n service to Miami, Toronto, and Los Angeles shortly.\n\n\n 78. The statements identified in Paragraph 77 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) the e-bikes rented were not \u201cUL-certified\u201d; (b) the e-bikes\n\nrented were not \u201csafe\u201d; (c) the statements omitted that the Company was then routinely violating\n\nthe most important safety regulations, and had already received dozens of violation notices; and,\n\nas a result, (d) the rental program and as e-bike sales as well were already imperiled by the\n\nCompany\u2019s known safety deviations.\n\n 79. These Defendants also repeated in their Q2 2025 Form 10-Q the false and\n\nmisleading statement that safety regulations would provide a \u201ctailwind\u201d to growth:\n\n\n Regulatory Landscape\n We operate in an industry that is subject to extensive environmental, safety and\n other laws and regulations, which include products safety and testing, as well as\n battery safety and disposal. These requirements create additional costs and\n\n 26\n\f possible production delay in connection with the testing and manufacturing of\n our products. We also benefit from environmental regulations in our target markets\n which include economic incentives to purchasers of EVs and tax credits for EV\n manufacturers. The Governor of New York State signed a legislative package in\n July 2024 aimed at raising awareness about the safe use of e-bikes and lithium-\n ion battery products, prohibiting the sale of non-compliant batteries, requiring\n safety protocols and training for first responders, mandating operating manuals\n for e-bike retailers, and improving accident reporting and registration processes\n for e-bikes and mopeds. Additionally, in July 2024, the New York City Department\n of Transportation announced that it anticipated to launch a $2 million trade-in\n program in early 2025, allowing eligible food delivery workers to replace their\n unsafe e-bikes, e-mobility devices, and batteries with certified, high-quality\n versions. While we expect relevant regulations to provide a tailwind to our\n growth, it is possible for other regulations to result in margin pressures.\n\n\n 80. The statements identified in Paragraph 79 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) they omitted that the Company was then selling e-bikes with\n\n\u201cnon-compliant batteries\u201d; (b) they omitted that the Company was not then complying with\n\napplicable safety laws, including but not limited to the UL Certification Law, of which it had been\n\nfound guilty of violating dozens of times; (c) they omitted that the Company was then utilizing\n\nCounterfeit UL Certification Marks in violation of local regulations and federal trademark law;\n\nand, as a result of (a)-(c), (d) the Company did not then \u201cexpect relevant regulations to provide a\n\ntailwind to [its] growth.\u201d\n\n 81. Defendants also incorporated the risk factors identified in Paragraph 71 that the\n\nCompany\u2019s rental program of \u201csafe, UL-Certified\u201d E-bikes \u201cmay not be successful.\u201d These\n\nstatements were misleading for the same reasons as in Paragraph 72.\n\n 82. The next day, November 20, 2024, the Company issued a press release announcing\n\nits second quarter of fiscal year 2025 results. In that press release, Defendant Ou touted the\n\nCompany\u2019s \u201cdedication to innovation\u201d and proclaimed that the Company\u2019s products were \u201csetting\n\nhigh safety standards in the electric vehicle industry\u201d:\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\f On the product and market side, we\u2019re energized by the success of our recent\n initiatives. At October\u2019s Electrify Expo in New York, our product lineup\u2014\n featuring 11 models spanning e-bikes, e-motorcycles, and e-scooters, with three\n newly launched models in the e-motorcycles\u2014drew strong interest and received\n highly positive feedback. Additionally, the launch of our e-bike Rental Service\n offers customers a flexible, affordable way to experience our products and positions\n us well to meet shifting consumer needs. As part of our growth strategy, we\u2019re\n expanding into key markets like Miami, Los Angeles and Toronto and broaden our\n presence. On the technological front, we are leveraging innovation to enhance\n customer convenience, including ongoing development of our mobile apps\n designed to streamline user experiences and provide more features for our\n customers. Our involvement in New York City\u2019s Trade-in Program for e-bikes\n and batteries is aligned with our commitment to setting high safety standards in\n the electric vehicle industry, helping provide UL-certified e-bikes for delivery\n workers. Moving forward, our dedication to innovation, safety, and superior\n customer experience is expected to continue to drive growth and enhance value\n for our shareholders.\n\n 83. The statements identified in Paragraph 82 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) Fly-E was not then \u201csetting high safety standards in the\n\nelectric vehicle industry\u201d but instead was a serial violator of safety standards and laws; (b) the\n\nstatements omitted that the Company was not then complying with applicable safety laws,\n\nincluding but not limited to the UL Certification Law, of which it had been found guilty of\n\nviolating dozens of times; (c) the statements omitted that the Company was then utilizing\n\nCounterfeit UL Certification Marks in violation of local regulations and federal trademark law;\n\nand (d) Fly-E\u2019s products were not \u201cinnovative\u201d\u2014rather they were simply operating as a reseller\n\nof Chinese manufactured goods that came 90 percent assembled when they arrived at the\n\nCompany\u2019s facility.\n\n 84. On July 15, 2025, the Company issued a press release in which Ou touted the\n\nCompany\u2019s gross margin and favorable prices from suppliers:\n\n We achieved an improvement in gross margin to 41.1%, supported by cost\n reductions and more favorable pricing obtained from our suppliers, particularly\n in battery sourcing. We are positive about our growth prospects despite the dip in\n revenue caused by short-term external factors, as we have established solid\n\n\n 28\n\f reputation and continued to invest in marketing and product diversification. With\n a focus on innovation, we now offer a broad and growing product portfolio of\n over 100 models across E-motorcycles, E-bikes, and E-scooters. Our rental\n service, which is already active in New York City, Toronto, and Los Angeles, is\n gaining strong traction, and we are excited to extend it to Miami and other markets\n in the near future.\n\n 85. The statements identified in Paragraph 84 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because they omitted the following facts necessary to make them not\n\nmisleading under the circumstances in which they were made: (a) the Company secured \u201cmore\n\nfavorable pricing\u201d from its suppliers \u201cprincipally in battery sourcing\u201d by illegally using\n\nunauthorized, non-compliant batteries; (b) the Company was still not complying with applicable\n\nsafety laws, including but not limited to the UL Certification Law; and (c) the Company did not\n\n\u201cfocus on innovation,\u201d but rather resold Chinese designed and manufactured goods.\n\n 86. Also on July 15, 2025, Defendants filed a Form 10-K with the SEC wherein the\n\nCompany announced its financial results for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025 (\u201c2025 Form\n\n10-K)\u201d. The 2025 Form 10-K was signed by Defendants Ou and Shiwen Feng. Defendants Ou and\n\nShiwen Feng also each certified that the financial information contained therein was accurate and\n\nthat the 2025 Form 10-K did not contain any untrue statement of material fact.\n\n 87. The 2025 Form 10-K made the following statement regarding the Company\u2019s\n\nregulatory landscape, and again repeated that regulations would provide a \u201ctailwind to growth\u201d.\n\n Regulatory Landscape\n\n We operate in an industry that is subject to extensive environmental, safety and\n other laws and regulations, which include products safety and testing, as well as\n battery safety and disposal. These requirements create additional costs and possible\n production delay in connection with the testing and manufacturing of our products.\n We also benefit from environmental regulations in our target markets which include\n economic incentives to purchasers of EVs and tax credits for EV manufacturers.\n The Governor of New York State signed a legislative package in July 2024 aimed\n at raising awareness about the safe use of e-bikes and lithium-ion battery products,\n prohibiting the sale of non-compliant batteries, requiring safety protocols and\n\n\n 29\n\f training for first responders, mandating operating manuals for e-bike retailers, and\n improving accident reporting and registration processes for e-bikes and mopeds.\n Additionally, in January 2025, the New York City Department of Transportation\n launched a $2 million trade-in program, allowing eligible food delivery workers\n to replace their unsafe e-bikes, e-mobility devices, and batteries with certified,\n high-quality versions. Our Fly-11 PRO was chosen for the official model of DOT\n and participates in this program. From January 2025 to June 2025, we\n participated in this program and completed the delivery of Fly-11 Pro models to\n our retail partner participating in the program. While we expect relevant\n regulations to provide a tailwind to our growth, it is possible for other regulations\n to result in margin pressures.\n\n 88. The statements identified in Paragraph 87 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) Fly-E electric micromobility vehicles were not \u201ccertified,\n\nhigh quality versions\u201d; (b) the statements omitted that the Company was still not complying with\n\napplicable safety laws, including but not limited to the UL Certification Law, of which it had been\n\nfound guilty of violating dozens of times; (c) they omitted that the Company was then utilizing\n\nCounterfeit UL Certification Marks in violation of local regulations and federal trademark law;\n\nand, as a result of (a)-(c), (d) the Company did not then \u201cexpect relevant regulations to provide a\n\ntailwind to [its] growth.\u201d\n\n 89. Defendants also made the following claim boasting about its \u201cinnovative\n\nproducts\u201d as a strength for the Company in the 2025 Form 10-K:\n\n Our Strengths\n\n ***\n\n Innovative Products and Services: We continue to offer innovative, differentiated\n products and services that help set us apart from our competitors. Since 2018, we\n have launched over 67 new products and introduced new versions to our existing\n products with upgrades to design, motor and battery technology. Additionally, we\n are developing the Fly E-Bike app, which will be used by customers to better\n manage and enjoy their riding experience. We are also developing the Fly E-Bike\n Care, an extended warranty program that will provide value-added options for our\n customers in the near future.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\f 90. The statements identified in Paragraph 89 above were materially false and\n\nmisleading when made because: (a) the products were not \u201cinnovative\u201d\u2014rather they were simply\n\noperating as a reseller of Chinese manufactured goods that came 90 percent assembled when they\n\narrived at the Company\u2019s facility, as confirmed by the depositions of Junchao and Rui Feng; (b)\n\nFly-E\u2019s products were a liability rather than a strength, as indicated by the rampant safety\n\nviolations the Company was then incurring; and (c) as a simple re-seller of non-compliant goods\n\nmade overseas, the Company and its products did not \u201cset [them] apart from [their] competitors.\u201d\n\n 91. None of the aforementioned misrepresentations and omissions was protected by the\n\nsafe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d),\n\nbecause they fell outside the scope of the safe harbor provision.\n\n 92. On July 22, 2025, the Company received two additional notices of violation for\n\nfailure to comply with the UL Certification Law. Fly-E also received four other notices of\n\nviolations of the New York administrative code in July 2025.\n\n IV. Additional Allegations of Scienter\n\n A. Defendants Admitted Having Access to the Information Concealed from Investors\n\n 93. Three of the Defendants (the Company, Ou, and Guo) each admitted in their\n\nConsent Judgment with UL but not their statements to investors identified herein that they \u201chad\n\nreason to know that they did not have authorization to use the UL Marks\u201d and that \u201cUL previously\n\nnotified Defendants on multiple occasions that they did not have authorization to use the UL\n\nCertification Marks in association with the promotion of the [electric micromobility vehicles].\u201d\n\nDefendant Ou specifically had knowledge of the component parts, including the defective\n\nbatteries. Ou testified in his Harris County deposition that he personally worked on the selection\n\nof batteries for Fly-E bike vehicles. Ou Dep. 121:12-18 Ou therefore knew of the safety issues\n\nconfronting these lithium batteries giving rise to widespread fines. Chief Operating Officer Rui\n\n 31\n\fFeng also testified at his deposition in the Harris County matter that Ou personally selected\n\ncomponent parts, including batteries. Rui Feng Dep. 31:9-32:24.\n\n 94. Defendants also had knowledge of facts contradicting their statements regarding\n\nthe design of the electric micromobility vehicles and their supposed \u201cinnovative technologies.\u201d As\n\nsenior Fly-E employees conceded, the Company was simply a reseller of Chinese made goods.\n\nBoth Rui Feng and Technology Support Officer Junchao also testified that electric micromobility\n\nvehicles arrive 90% preassembled when Fly-E acquires them from overseas. Rui Feng Dep. 22:19-\n\n23:1; Junchao Dep. 9:9-16.\n\n 95. Defendants\u2019 own statements discussing UL Certification Law, as well as battery\n\nfires and the strategic importance of certified, safe batteries, show that Defendants held themselves\n\nout as knowledgeable about the concealed information and claimed to understand details\n\nsurrounding these subjects. At all times, therefore, Defendants either had actual knowledge that\n\ntheir statements to the public were materially false and misleading when made, or made the\n\nstatements recklessly without regard as to whether their statements were truthful.\n\n B. That the Misrepresentations Concerned the Core Operations of the Company\n Bolsters an Inference of Scienter\n\n 96. Fly-E\u2019s core business was the sale of electric micromobility vehicles, specifically\n\ne-bikes, e-scooters, and e-motorcycles, targeting food delivery workers, and its most important\n\ngeographic market was New York City. Defendants acknowledged understanding that selling their\n\ncore product in that most important market hinged on satisfying strict safety regulations. Because\n\nthey understood the importance of the misrepresented material to Fly-E\u2019s business, because the\n\noperation of their day-to-day responsibilities would certainly expose them to the actual facts about\n\nthe actual design and manufacturing of the Fly-E bikes and because of the pervasive nature of\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\finternally known safety violations and penalties, it would be absurd to assume that Defendants\n\nwere unaware of the concealed safety misconduct.\n\n C. That Defendants Certified Fly-E\u2019s Annual and Quarterly Filings to Investors\n Bolsters Scienter\n\n 97. Guo, Ou, and Shiwen Feng\u2019s actual knowledge of the falsity of the alleged\n\nmisstatements and omissions is also supported by their signed Sarbanes-Oxley certifications in\n\nFly-E\u2019s Form 10-Qs and Form 10-Ks filed with the SEC, as detailed above.\n\n 98. These certifications stated, among other things, that they had reviewed the\n\nrespective filings to ensure that they \u201cdo[] not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or\n\nomit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances\n\nunder which such statements were made, not misleading.\u201d\n\n 99. The Company warned investors of the importance of complying with the regulatory\n\nlaws, including the UL Certification Law, and repeatedly told investors that \u201cwe believe we are\n\npresently in compliance with applicable laws and regulations in our operating regions.\u201d\n\n 100. If Ou, Guo, and Shiwen Feng, had, in fact, made these assessments, then they would\n\nhave actual knowledge that the Forms 10-Qs and 10-K contained numerous misleading statements\n\nabout safety, compliance with laws generally and the UL Certification Law specifically, whether\n\nregulatory requirements were a tailwind or headwind, and whether the Company was in fact an\n\ninnovative designer or simply a reseller of existing Chinese designs, and should have informed\n\ninvestors of the truth. If they had not, then they were reckless in making such statements to\n\ninvestors.\n\n D. The Company\u2019s Precarious Position Supports an Inference of Fraud\n\n 101. The Company had substantial negative cash flows following its IPO. While the\n\nCompany had a cash balance of $4.5 million in June 2024, it dropped to $1.3 million on September\n\n\n 33\n\f30, 2024, and declined even further to $.8 million on March 31, 2025. As Fly-E admitted in July,\n\n2025, without further capital raises, there was substantial doubt as to the Company\u2019s ability to\n\ncontinue to operate. Faced with mounting losses, the Company needed to raise capital repeatedly.\n\nHad it disclosed the truth, it would have been unable to do so, or to do so at viable prices.\n\n E. The Widespread Resignations Among Senior Officers and Board Members at the\n Company Support Scienter\n\n 102. On August 20, 2025, less than one week after the Company\u2019s disclosure attributing\n\na 32 percent decline in revenue to battery fires, Defendant Shiwen Feng resigned as Chief Financial\n\nOfficer. The next day, Directors Lun Feng and Zanfeng Zhang resigned from the board. The\n\ntemporal proximity between these resignations and the Company\u2019s disclosure of devastating news\n\nthat the Company had previously hidden and downplayed contributes to the inference of scienter.\n\n 103. In addition, the fact that every director other than Ou who consented to being\n\nnamed as a director at the time of the IPO has resigned bolsters an inference of scienter. At the\n\ntime of the IPO, the board consisted of Ou, Guo, Bin Wang, Lun Feng, and Alan Jacobs. Other\n\nthan Ou, all have resigned. In addition to Zanfeng Zhang and Lun Feng\u2019s departures, on November\n\n6, 2024, after the Company had been confronted with multiple notices that it had violated the UL\n\nCertification Law, Defendant Guo resigned as Chief Financial Officer. Also, on August 15, 2024,\n\nAlan Jacobs resigned from the Board of Directors. On October 31, 2025, Director Bin Wang also\n\nresigned.\n\n V. Corrective Events\n\n 104. On May 28, 2025, after the stock market had closed, the Company disclosed in a\n\nForm 8-K filing that it had entered into a settlement agreement with UL, in which the Company\n\nagreed to pay UL $1,000,000 and entered into a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction and\n\n\u201cagreed not to offer for sale, sell, or distribute products with UL Marks that were not tested and\n\n\n 34\n\fcertified by UL.\u201d On this news, the Company\u2019s stock price dropped 9.59% the next trading day,\n\nclosing at $44.30.11\n\n 105. On August 14, 2025, Fly-E filed with the SEC an NT 10-Q notice on Form 12b-\n\n25 conceding its inability to timely file its Quarterly Report for the first quarter of fiscal year\n\n2026. The filing revealed a significant 32% decrease in Fly-E\u2019s net revenue compared to the same\n\nperiod in 2024. Significantly, the notice stated that the primary driver for the revenue decrease\n\nwas a decline of \u201ctotal units sold\u201d as customers were less inclined to purchase e-bikes due to an\n\n\u201cincreasing number of lithium battery explosion incidents in New York.\u201d\n\n 106. The aforementioned press release, NT 10-Q SEC filing and statements made by\n\nDefendants were in direct contrast to statements they made in the Company\u2019s 10-K Annual Report\n\nfiled with the SEC on July 15, 2025. In that filing, Defendants repeatedly praised Fly-E\u2019s inflated\n\nbrand reputation in the industry, cost reductions and favorable pricing from suppliers as enabling\n\nFly-E to grow its sales network and improve gross margins forecasted for the fiscal year 2026,\n\nwhile simultaneously minimizing risks associated with supply chain changes and the regulatory\n\nenvironment, the potential impact of the macro environment, and possible demand fluctuations\n\nfor its e-bikes and e-scooters.\n\n 107. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Fly-E\u2019s revelation. The price of Fly-\n\nE\u2019s common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $155.20 per share on\n\nAugust 14, 2025, Fly-E\u2019s stock price fell to close at $20 per share on August 15, 2025, a decline\n\nof more than 87% in the span of just a single day. The stock continued to drop the next trading\n\nday, closing at $16.02 on August 18, 2025.\n\n\n11\n The stock prices reflected herein account for the 1 for 5 reverse stock split on July 7, 2025 and\n1 for 20 reverse stock split on November 4, 2025. The actual trading price at the time was 1/100th\nof the listed price after accounting for the stock splits.\n\n 35\n\f PLAINTIFFS\u2019 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS\n\n 108. Plaintiffs bring this Action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n\nProcedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired\n\nthe Company\u2019s common stock between June 6, 2024 and August 14, 2025, seeking to pursue\n\nremedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Excluded are Defendants, former\n\nand current officers, senior managers, and directors of Fly-E, any entity in which any of the\n\nDefendants (alone or in combination with other Defendants) have or had a 10% or higher interest,\n\nand any affiliates, related entities, joint ventures, family members, legal representatives, heirs,\n\nsuccessors or assigns of any of the above; or any person who acquired shares via conversion of an\n\ninterest in or obligation of Fly-E that existed prior to June 6, 2024, with respect to such shares.\n\n 109. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is\n\nimpracticable. Throughout the Class Period, the Company\u2019s securities were actively traded on the\n\nNASDAQ. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and can\n\nbe ascertained only through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe that there are hundreds or\n\nthousands of members in the proposed Class. Record owners and other Class members may be\n\nidentified from records maintained by the Company or its transfer agent and may be notified of\n\nthe pendency of this Action by mail, using the form of notice similar to that customarily used in\n\nsecurities class actions.\n\n 110. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are typical of the claims of Class members as all were similarly\n\naffected by Defendants\u2019 wrongful conduct in violation of federal law that is complained of herein.\n\n 111. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of Class members and have\n\nretained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation. Plaintiffs have no\n\ninterests antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the Class.\n\n\n\n 36\n\f 112. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate\n\nover any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law\n\nand fact common to the Class are:\n\n\n \u2022 whether the Registration Statement contained any material\n misrepresentations or omissions;\n \u2022 whether the statements to the investing public after the IPO detailed above\n misrepresented material facts about the business, operations and\n management of the Company;\n \u2022 whether the individual Defendants caused the Company to issue false and\n misleading statements identified above;\n \u2022 whether Defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in issuing false and\n misleading statements;\n \u2022 whether the prices of the Company\u2019s securities during the Class Period were\n artificially inflated because of the Defendants\u2019 conduct complained of\n herein;\n \u2022 whether the individual Defendants were control persons of Fly-E; and\n \u2022 whether Class members have sustained damages and, if so, what is the\n proper measure of damages.\n\n 113. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient\n\nadjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as the\n\ndamages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden\n\nof individual litigation make it impossible for Class members to individually redress the wrongs\n\ndone to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this Action as a class action.\n\n 114. Plaintiffs will rely, in part, upon the presumption of reliance established by the\n\nfraud-on-the-market doctrine in that:\n\n \u2022 Defendants made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose\n material facts during the Class Period;\n \u2022 the omissions and misrepresentations were material;\n \u2022 the Company\u2019s securities traded in an efficient market;\n \u2022 the Company\u2019s securities were liquid and traded with moderate to\n heavy volume during the Class Period;\n \u2022 the Company traded on the NASDAQ;\n \u2022 Company-specific information regarding the Company\u2019s products\n and safety compliance was rapidly conveyed to investors via press\n\n 37\n\f releases, news coverage, message board postings, and social media,\n and impounded into the share price of FLYE\n \u2022 the misrepresentations and omissions alleged would tend to induce\n a reasonable investor to misjudge the value of the Company\u2019s\n securities; and\n \u2022 Plaintiffs and members of the Class purchased, acquired and/or sold\n the Company\u2019s securities between the time the Defendants failed to\n disclose or misrepresented material facts and the time the true facts\n were disclosed, without knowledge of the omitted or misrepresented\n facts.\n\n 115. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to a\n\npresumption of reliance upon the integrity of the market.\n\n 116. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to the presumption of\n\nreliance established by the Supreme Court in Affiliated Ute Citizens of the State of Utah v. United\n\nStates, 406 U.S. 128 (1972), as the claims herein are based primarily on Defendants\u2019 omission of\n\nmaterial information in their statements in violation of a duty to disclose such information, as\n\ndetailed above.\n\n COUNT I\n\n (Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated\n\n Thereunder Against All Defendants)\n\n 117. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully\n\nset forth herein.\n\n 118. This Count is asserted against all Defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the\n\nExchange Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC.\n\n 119. In connection with the IPO and during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a\n\nplan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly\n\nengaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and\n\ndeceit upon Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class; made various untrue statements of\n\n\n 38\n\fmaterial facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made,\n\nin light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and employed devices,\n\nschemes and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Such\n\nscheme was intended to, and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public,\n\nincluding Plaintiffs and other Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain\n\nthe market price of Fly-E common stock; and (iii) cause Plaintiffs and other Class members to\n\npurchase or otherwise acquire Fly-E common stock at artificially inflated prices.\n\n 120. Defendants acted with scienter in that they knew or deliberately disregarded that\n\nthe public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were\n\nmaterially false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued or\n\ndisseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated, or acquiesced\n\nin the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations of the\n\nsecurities laws. Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts of the\n\nCompany, their control over, and/or receipt and/or modification of the Company\u2019s materially\n\nmisleading statements, and/or their associations with the Company, were privy to confidential\n\nproprietary information concerning the Company and participated in the fraudulent scheme alleged\n\nherein.\n\n 121. Each had actual knowledge of the material omissions and/or the falsity of the\n\nmaterial statements set forth above, and intended to be deceitful, or, in the alternative, acted with\n\nreckless disregard for the truth when they failed to ascertain and disclose the true facts in the\n\nstatements made by them or other Company personnel.\n\n 122. Defendants Ou and Guo were directors of the Company and knew they had a duty\n\nto make a reasonable investigation into the statements contained therein, and were able to make\n\n\n\n 39\n\fsuch investigation. Each either knowingly signed the Registration Statement effecting the IPO\n\ndespite knowing as a result of such investigation that the statements identified above as being\n\ncontained therein contained material omissions and were otherwise false and misleading, or\n\nrecklessly did so without making the factual investigation anticipated under federal securities laws.\n\nEach had the ability to control the IPO by withholding signature until the omitted material was\n\ndisclosed and all other materially false and misleading statements corrected.\n\n 123. Defendants Ou, Guo and Shiwen Feng were officers of the Company during the\n\nClass Period and signed and certified the periodic SEC filings identified above. Each knew they\n\nhad a duty to make a reasonable investigation into the statements contained therein, and were able\n\nto make such investigation. Each either knowingly signed such statements despite knowing that\n\nthe statements identified above as being contained therein contained material omissions and were\n\notherwise false and misleading, or recklessly claimed in their certifications to having made a\n\nfactual investigation they did not actually make. Each had the ability to control the SEC filings by\n\nwithholding signature or certification until the omitted material was disclosed and all other\n\nmaterially false and misleading statements corrected.\n\n 124. As a result of the foregoing, the market price of Company securities was artificially\n\ninflated during the Class Period. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class relied on the\n\nstatements described above and/or the integrity of the market price of Company securities during\n\nthe Class Period in purchasing Company securities at prices that were artificially inflated as a result\n\nof these Defendants\u2019 false and misleading statements.\n\n 125. Had Plaintiffs and the other Class members been aware that the market price of the\n\nCompany\u2019s securities had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants\u2019 misleading\n\nstatements and by the material adverse information which Defendants did not disclose, they would\n\n\n\n 40\n\fnot have purchased Company securities at the artificially inflated prices that they did, or at all.\n\n 126. As a result of the wrongful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiffs and other Class\n\nmembers have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial.\n\n 127. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated Section 10(b) of the 1934\n\nAct and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and are liable to the Plaintiffs and the other Class\n\nmembers for substantial damages which they suffered in connection with their purchase of\n\nCompany securities during the Class Period.\n\n COUNT II\n\n (Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act Against Defendants Ou, Guo, and\n\n Shiwen Feng)\n\n 128. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the foregoing\n\nparagraphs as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 129. Defendants Ou and Guo were executives and/or directors of the Company at the\n\ntime of the IPO and signed the Registration Statement. Both had the ability to control Fly-E\u2019s\n\ndisclosures to investors in the Registration Statement by withholding signature until the omitted\n\nmaterial was disclosed and all other materially false and misleading statements corrected. These\n\nsignatories, therefore, were \u201ccontrolling persons\u201d of Fly-E within the meaning of Section 20(a) of\n\nthe Exchange Act. In this capacity, they participated in the unlawful conduct alleged, which\n\nartificially inflated the market price of Fly-E shares.\n\n 130. Defendants Ou, Guo and Shiwen Feng participated in the operation and\n\nmanagement of the Company during the Class Period, and conducted and participated, directly\n\nand indirectly, in the conduct of the Company\u2019s business affairs, including the Company\u2019s\n\noperations, its safety compliance, and its interaction with regulators. Because of their senior\n\n\n\n 41\n\fpositions, they knew the adverse non-public information about the Company\u2019s false and\n\nmisleading statements, and in fact. Each signed and certified the periodic SEC filings identified\n\nabove, and had the ability to control Fly-E\u2019s disclosures to investors in those SEC filings by\n\nwithholding signature or certification until the omitted material was disclosed and all other\n\nmaterially false and misleading statements corrected. These officers, therefore, were \u201ccontrolling\n\npersons\u201d of Fly-E within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In this capacity, they\n\nparticipated in the unlawful conduct alleged, which artificially inflated the market price of Fly-E\n\nshares.\n\n 131. As officers and/or directors of a publicly owned company, Defendants had a duty\n\nto disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to the Company\u2019s financial condition\n\nand results of operations, and to correct promptly any public statements issued by the Company\n\nwhich had become materially false or misleading.\n\n 132. Because of their positions of control and authority as senior officers, and their day-\n\nto-day responsibilities in the management of Fly-E, Ou, Guo, and Shiwen Feng were further able\n\nto, and did, control the contents of the various reports, press releases and public filings which Fly-\n\nE disseminated in the marketplace during the Class Period concerning Fly-E\u2019s results of\n\noperations. Throughout the Class Period, Ou, Guo, and Shiwen Feng exercised their power and\n\nauthority to cause the Company to engage in the wrongful acts complained of herein.\n\n 133. By reason of their senior management positions and/or being directors of Fly-E,\n\nand the specific roles described above, Ou, Guo, and Shiwen Feng each had the power to direct\n\nthe actions of, and exercised the same to cause, Fly-E to engage in the unlawful acts and conduct\n\ncomplained of herein. Each of them exercised control over the general operations of Fly-E and\n\n\n\n\n 42\n\fpossessed the power to control the specific activities that comprise the primary violations of Fly-\n\nE about which Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class complain.\n\n 134. By reason of the above conduct, Ou, Guo, and Shiwen Feng are liable pursuant to\n\nSection 20(a) of the Exchange Act for the violations committed by Fly-E. Each is also liable for\n\ntheir own primary violations.\n\n\n PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n\n WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as follows:\n\n A. Determining that the instant Action may be maintained as a class action under Rule\n\n23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying Plaintiffs as the Class representatives;\n\n B. Requiring Defendants to pay damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class by\n\nreason of the acts and transactions alleged herein;\n\n C. Awarding Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class prejudgment and post-\n\njudgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees, expert fees and other costs; and\n\n D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.\n\n\n DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY\n\n Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.\n\n\n\nDated: September 14, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n POMERANTZ LLP\n\n By: /s/ Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n\n Joshua B. Silverman\n (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n (pro hac vice)\n 10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505\n\n 43\n\f Chicago, Illinois 60603\n Tel: (312) 377-1181\n Fax: (312) 229-8811\n jbsilverman@pomlaw.com\n boconnell@pomlaw.com\n\n Jeremy A. Lieberman\n J. Alexander Hood II\n James M. LoPiano\n 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n Tel: (212) 661-1100\n Fax: (212) 661-8665\n jalieberman@pomlaw.com\n ahood@pomlaw.com\n jlopiano@pomlaw.com\n\n\n Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs\n\n KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.\n Michael K. Yarnoff\n 2001 Market Street\n Suite 2500\n Philadelphia, PA 19103\n Tel: (215) 792-6676\n myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com\n\n Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs\n\n\n\n\n44\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-20T13:03:13.999786-07:00","document_number":"67","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T16:00:22.920267-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T16:00:22.926912-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"18:57:29","entry_number":67,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477848645/","id":477848645,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493458458/","id":493458458,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/66/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-09-14T08:21:18.364260-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T08:21:18.370376-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"66","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Corporate Disclosure Statement","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T08:21:18.343687-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T08:21:18.350047-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"11:17:39","entry_number":66,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477369293/","id":477369293,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492962155/","id":492962155,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-09T09:40:25.605647-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T09:40:25.605655-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Pre Motion Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-09T09:40:25.597764-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T09:40:25.597775-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-09","time_filed":"12:30:37","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475418019/","id":475418019,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490948526/","id":490948526,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/65/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-21T14:35:53.832592-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T14:35:53.841043-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"65","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-21T14:35:53.806166-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T14:35:53.813310-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-21","time_filed":"17:25:21","entry_number":65,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475414344/","id":475414344,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490944830/","id":490944830,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/64/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-21T14:22:55.835573-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T06:11:28.874237-07:00","sha1":"2282e580f9685ae27063452b77d6ee09cca917f5","page_count":4,"file_size":410268,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034.64.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034/gov.uscourts.nyed.536034.64.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n Of Counsel\n\n August 21, 2026\nVIA ECF\nJudge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.\nUnited States District Court\nEastern District of New York\n225 Cadman Plaza East\nCourtroom 2E North\nBrooklyn, NY 11201\n\n RE: Kurt v. Ou et al., 1:25-cv-05017-RER-CHK (E.D.N.Y.)\n\nDear Judge Reyes:\n\n Lead Plaintiffs Fredrik Melin (\u201cMelin\u201d) and Ringkallens Holding AB (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) write\nin response to the letter from Defendants Fly-E Group, Inc. (\u201cFly-E\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d), Zhou Ou\n(\u201cOu\u201d), Ruifeng Guo (\u201cGuo\u201d), Shiwen Feng, Bin Wang, Lun Feng, and Alan Jacobs (collectively,\n\u201cFly-E Group Defendants\u201d and \u201cFly-E Group Letter\u201d, ECF No. 62) requesting leave to file a\nmotion to dismiss. Although Plaintiffs maintain that their First Amended Complaint (the\n\u201cComplaint,\u201d ECF No. 60), is well-pled, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to amend their\ncomplaint to add additional allegations to remove any potential uncertainty in connection with the\nSection 11 claim.1\n\n Plaintiffs Plead Actionable Misstatements. Fly-E Group Defendants argue that the\nstatements about Fly-E\u2019s manufacturing, design, and compliance risks were merely general,\nforward-looking statements, and therefore could not be relied upon. But the safe harbor for\nforward-looking statements categorically does not apply to statements \u201cmade in connection with\nan initial public offering[,]\u201d see 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-5(b)(2)(D). Moreover, the safe harbor provides\nno protection, as here, for misrepresentations of historical and current material facts. See City of\nProvidence v. Aeropostale, Inc., 11-Civ-7132(CM)(THK), 2013 WL 1197755, at *12-13\n(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2013). Nor is Fly-E Group Defendants\u2019 truth-on-the-market defense\nappropriate. See Ganino v. Citizens Utils. Co., 228 F.3d 154, 167 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that the\ninquiry is intensely fact specific and rarely appropriate to consider on a motion to dismiss); Gimpel\nv. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 156 F.4th 142-43 (2d Cir. 2025) (rejecting truth-on-the-market defense\nwhere, as here, defendants relied on tangentially related SEC filings to seek dismissal). Fly-E\nGroup Defendants did not disclose that they were using counterfeit UL Certification marks until\n\n1\n References herein to \u00b6 or \u00b6\u00b6 are to the Complaint.\n\n\n boconnell@pomlaw.com\n 10 South LaSalle St., Suite 3505, Chicago, IL 60603 Main: 312.377.1181 Direct: 312.881.4859\n NEW YORK CHICAGO LOS ANGELES LONDON PARIS TEL AVIV\n www.pomlaw.com\n\fthey disclosed the Consent Judgment on May 28, 2025. Until then, they expressly denied any\nimpropriety, obfuscating rather than disclosing the truth.2 Nor are the statements mere puffery:\nthey claimed compliance with regulations while being inundated with safety violations, claimed\nthat Fly-E \u201cprincipally engaged in designing\u201d electric vehicles when primarily all it did was re-\nbrand them, and claimed that Fly-E manufactured when the electric vehicles in fact arrived almost\nentirely pre-assembled. \u00b6\u00b66, 33, 60, 101; see Karimi v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, 607 F.\nSupp. 3d 381, 392-93 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (rejecting puffery argument where statements contradicted\ntrue state of internal affairs).\n\n Plaintiffs Plead Scienter for Exchange Act Claims. An inference of scienter \u201cneed not\nbe irrefutable . . . or even the most plausible,\u201d and Plaintiffs are not required to provide a \u201csmoking-\ngun.\u201d Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 324 (2007) (internal quotations\nomitted). Three of the Exchange Act Defendants (the Company, Ou, and Guo) have admitted that\nthey \u201chad reason to know that they did not have authorization to use the UL Marks\u201d and that \u201cUL\npreviously notified Defendants on multiple occasions that they did not have authorization to use\nthe UL Certification Marks.\u201d Ou also admitted knowledge of the component electric vehicle parts,\nincluding defective batteries, and senior employees testified that the Company did not principally\nmanufacture or design its own bikes. \u00b6\u00b633, 100-01.\n\n The Complaint bolsters these allegations by pleading that the sale of electric micromobility\nvehicles was Fly-E\u2019s core operation. \u00b6103; see Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v.\nLexmark Int'l, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 16, 38 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (misstatements about a company\u2019s\n\u201cprimary profit engine\u201d support scienter). Also, the Exchange Act Defendants personally signed\nand falsely certified to the accuracy of the offending filings under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act\n(\u201cSOX\u201d). \u00b6\u00b6104-07; see Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat\u2019l Pension Fund v. Davis, 16-cv-3591-GHW,\n2020 WL 1877821, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020). Moreover, that Fly-E was in a precarious\nfinancial condition supports the inference that Exchange Act Defendants were motivated to\nconceal the truth from investors while they continued to raise capital. See \u00b6108; Leone v. ASP\nIsotopes Inc., 811 F. Supp. 3d 563, 607 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). In addition, the widespread resignations\namong Defendants and senior employees bolster the inference of fraud. See \u00b6\u00b6109-10; In re Scot.\nRe Grp. Sec. Litig., 524 F. Supp. 2d 370, 394 n.176 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).3\n\n Plaintiffs Allege Loss Causation for the Exchange Act Claims. 4 The Complaint pleads\nloss causation by alleging that the stock dropped precipitously after two corrective disclosures on\nMay 28, 2025 and August 14, 2025. \u00b6\u00b6111-14. On May 28, 2025, Fly-E disclosed a $1 million\n\n2\n The Court should reject the Fly-E Group Defendants\u2019 attempt at introducing documents that are neither subject to\nincorporation by reference nor judicial notice, or to draw factual inferences from them.\n3\n Fly-E Group Defendants\u2019 group pleading arguments are misplaced because the Complaint raises a strong inference\nof scienter as to each Exchange Act Defendant, and scienter may be imputed to Fly-E even absent individual scienter.\nSee Teamsters Loc. 445 Freight Div. Pension Fund v. Dynex Cap. Inc., 531 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2008).\n4\n Loss causation is not an element of a Securities Act claim. See In re Arqit Quantum Inc. Sec. Litig., 774 F. Supp. 3d\n505, 534 (E.D.N.Y. 2025).\n 2\n\fsettlement with UL and agreed to stop selling bikes with counterfeit UL Certifications, causing its\nstock to fall 9.59%. In August, Fly-E reported a 32% decline in net revenue driven by reduced e-\nbike sales amid an increasing number of lithium-battery explosions, sending its stock down more\nthan 87% in one day. See Abramson v. Newlink Genetics Corp., 965 F.3d 165, 179 (2d Cir. 2020)\n(\u201c[P]laintiffs sufficiently plead loss causation when they allege that their share\u2019s price fell\nsignificantly after the truth became known.\u201d) (internal quotation omitted). Unlike in Lentell v.\nMerrill Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d 161, 175 (2d Cir. 2005), where the eventual downgrade of a stock\ndid not reveal the falsity of a prior recommendation, the disclosures relate back to the alleged false\nstatements and omissions. Plaintiffs do not have to rule out other causes of drops at the pleading\nstage. City of Birmingham Ret. & Relief Sys. v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, No. 17 CIV. 10014 (LGS),\n2019 WL 719751, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019).5\n\n Although Fly-E Group Defendants\u2019 Standing Arguments Are Misplaced, Plaintiffs\nRequest Leave to Amend Section 11 Allegations. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased or\nacquired shares traceable to the Defective Registration Statement. \u00b618. At the pleading stage, that\nallegation is generally sufficient. In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., 116 F. Supp. 3d 368, 384 (S.D.N.Y.\n2015).\n\n Nevertheless, Plaintiffs agree that the allegation of additional facts would eliminate any\nuncertainty regarding the issue. Plaintiffs believe such amendment would conserve the parties\u2019 and\nthe Court\u2019s resources, and respectfully request leave to do so by September 14, 2026.6 See Johnson\nv. City of New York, No. 16-CV-6426(KAM)(VMS), 2018 WL 5282874, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24,\n2018) (noting that the \u201cfundamental purpose\u201d of a premotion letter and conference is to discuss\npotential defects in the pleading, and to allow plaintiffs to replead to address such defects); Baez\nv. American Honda Motor Company, Inc et al., No. 2:25-cv-05290, ECF No. 9, Minute Entry\n(E.D.N.Y. Sep 29, 2025) (granting leave to file a second complaint after plaintiff requested it in\nresponse to a pre-motion to dismiss letter).\n\n\n\n\n5\n In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d 501, 505 (2d Cir. 2010), is not applicable, as that was a summary\njudgment holding. Moreover, unlike in Omnicom, the Fly-E Group Defendants disputed the reported facts. Fly-E\nGroup Defendants\u2019 claim that the declines were delayed is likewise incorrect: both corrective disclosures caused\nmarket losses the next trading day, unlike Huey, which involved a two-trading-day delay after the disclosure until\nshares meaningfully declined. See Huey v. Anavex Life Scis. Corp., 180 F.4th 56, 71 (2d Cir. 2026).\n6\n Plaintiffs request the September 14, 2026 deadline because of several pre-existing deadlines during the next three\nweeks, including class certification briefing, motion to dismiss briefing in another matter, and deadlines for filing two\nother complaints. Plaintiffs also respectfully request this additional time to accommodate pre-scheduled personal\nobligations of Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel, as well as the upcoming federal holiday and Rosh Hashanah, which certain attorneys\non this case observe.\n\n 3\n\f Sincerely,\n\n\n /s/ Brian P. O\u2019Connell\n Joshua B. Silverman (pro hac vice\n forthcoming)\n Brian P. O\u2019Connell (pro hac vice)\n POMERANTZ LLP\n 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505\n Chicago, Illinois 60603\n Tel.: (312) 377-1181\n Fax: (312) 377-1184\n jbsilverman@pomlaw.com\n boconnell@pomlaw.com\n\n Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\n\n KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.\n Michael K. Yarnoff\n 2001 Market Street Suite 2500\n Philadelphia, PA 19103\n Tel: (215) 792-6676\n myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com\n\n Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs\n\nCc: All counsel of record (via ECF)\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-23T19:22:26.316699-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-21T14:22:55.815297-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T14:22:55.820695-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-21","time_filed":"17:18:56","entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474886720/","id":474886720,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490401021/","id":490401021,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/63/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-18T11:06:00.289345-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-18T11:06:00.299748-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-18T11:06:00.262340-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-18T11:06:00.269789-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-18","time_filed":"13:57:03","entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474565121/","id":474565121,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490069880/","id":490069880,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/62/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-14T17:41:08.254634-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:49:38.502944-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"123024080825","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Pre Motion Conference","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490069974/","id":490069974,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/62/1/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.144586-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.144599-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":682719,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"123024080826","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - June 5, 2025 Form 8-K","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490069975/","id":490069975,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/62/2/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.237804-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.237819-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":5,"file_size":680616,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"123024080827","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B - July 2, 2025 Form 8-K","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490069976/","id":490069976,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/62/3/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.255941-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.255956-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":76,"file_size":1652151,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"123024080828","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C - November 19, 2024 Form 10-Q","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490069977/","id":490069977,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/62/4/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.277278-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.277294-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":26,"file_size":9154709,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"123024080829","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D - [Article] Moped King How an Ex-Delivery Worker Upended the Streets o","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490069978/","id":490069978,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/62/5/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.295292-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:49:45.295307-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":8,"file_size":3769622,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"123024080830","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E - [Article] Problems at Fly-E Group (FLYE) - by Edwin Dorsey","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-14T17:41:08.224292-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:49:38.470578-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-14","time_filed":"20:39:51","entry_number":62,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-14.002","pacer_sequence_number":260,"description":"Letter MOTION for pre motion conference by Lun Feng, Shiwen Feng, Fly-E Group, Inc., Ruifeng Guo, Alan Jacobs, Zhou Ou, Bin Wang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - June 5, 2025 Form 8-K, # 2 Exhibit B - July 2, 2025 Form 8-K, # 3 Exhibit C - November 19, 2024 Form 10-Q, # 4 Exhibit D - [Article] Moped King How an Ex-Delivery Worker Upended the Streets of NYC, # 5 Exhibit E - [Article] Problems at Fly-E Group (FLYE) - by Edwin Dorsey) (Horgan, John) (Entered: 08/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474563948/","id":474563948,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490068586/","id":490068586,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-14T17:11:06.331921-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:11:06.331938-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-14T17:11:06.310792-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:11:06.310810-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER granting 59 motion for leave to file document corrected first amended complaint. Plaintiffs may file the proposed corrected amended complaint by August 12, 2026. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clay H. Kaminsky on 8/7/2026. (STH)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474536748/","id":474536748,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490039463/","id":490039463,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/61/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-14T13:55:08.722678-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:11:06.485539-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"123024079954","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-14T13:55:08.701838-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:11:06.443908-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-14","time_filed":"16:47:32","entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":258,"description":"Letter by The Benchmark Company, LLC (Shih, Willard) (Entered: 08/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473831592/","id":473831592,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489310951/","id":489310951,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/60/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-10T07:33:48.267801-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:11:06.406305-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"123024058372","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-10T07:33:48.236832-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T17:11:06.356300-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-10","time_filed":"10:20:56","entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":254,"description":"AMENDED COMPLAINT (Corrected) against All Defendants, filed by Ringkallens Holding AB, Fredrik Melin. (O'Connell, Brian) (Entered: 08/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473689222/","id":473689222,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489163069/","id":489163069,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-07T13:32:01.090619-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-07T13:32:01.090631-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-07T13:32:01.076436-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-07T13:32:01.076449-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":"16:28:38","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473117659/","id":473117659,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488574089/","id":488574089,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/59/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-08-03T16:30:41.731171-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T23:14:24.460702-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"123024039263","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T16:30:41.701287-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T23:14:24.378829-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"19:22:08","entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":250,"description":"Letter MOTION for Leave to File Document Corrected First Amended Complaint by Fredrik Melin, Ringkallens Holding AB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Proposed Corrected Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B- Redline Comparison) (O'Connell, Brian) (Entered: 08/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473019652/","id":473019652,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488473521/","id":488473521,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-03T08:25:04.301487-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T08:25:04.301500-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T08:25:04.274265-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T08:25:04.274279-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER: The parties' 58 stipulation is so ordered. Defendant the Benchmark Company, LLC (\"Benchmark\") shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint by August 14, 2026. If Benchmark files or joins in a pre-motion letter, Plaintiff shall respond by August 21, 2026. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clay H. Kaminsky on 7/29/2026. (STH)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472518205/","id":472518205,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487955356/","id":487955356,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-29T10:06:27.994118-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T10:06:27.994135-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order to Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T10:06:27.984793-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T10:06:27.984815-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-29","time_filed":"12:58:41","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472391937/","id":472391937,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71292129/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487824390/","id":487824390,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71292129/58/kurt-v-ou/","date_created":"2026-07-28T10:44:40.887140-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T08:25:04.225357-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"123024016558","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-28T10:44:40.866584-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T08:25:04.129929-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-28","time_filed":"13:32:50","entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":245,"description":"STIPULATION STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT THE BENCHMARK COMPANY, LLC by The Benchmark Company, LLC (Shih, Willard) (Entered: 07/28/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71292129&page_size=40"}