Wolf v. Martin et al

Filing 10

ORDER re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Hearing on Motion MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by Don Medicine Wolf, Hearing set as to 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Hearing on Motion MOTION for Order to Show Cause: Motion Hearing set for 9/23/2010 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/2/2010. (NVO)

Wolf v. Martin et al

Doc. 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Don Medicine Wolf, Plaintiff, vs. Ambaya Pilar Martin, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV10-8163 PCT DGC

ORDER

On August 31, 2010, Plaintiff Don Medicine Wolf filed a complaint against Defendant Ambaya Pilar Martin and others in which he alleges that Defendants violated the Lanham Act, breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, and committed various other state law torts. Doc. 1 at 1-18. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have effectively stolen his life's work, which consists of medicines and mineral supplements that "improve and enhance a person's health and wellbeing[.]" Doc. 4 at 2. He contends that Defendants are illegally using his trade secrets, and has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Defendants' infringing activities. Doc. 3. He also requests an expedited hearing on his request for a temporary restraining order. Id. Plaintiff filed his complaint and request for a temporary restraining order on August 31, 2010. See Docs. 1, 3. It appears that no Defendant has yet received notice of Plaintiff's complaint, his motion for a temporary restraining order, or his request for expedited consideration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 does not allow a court to issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party unless the party seeking the order makes the showing required by Rule 65(b)(1). Plaintiff has not shown that efforts have been made to give notice to Defendants, has not requested issuance of a temporary
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

restraining order without notice, and, even if he had, has not shown cause for the Court to issue such an order without notice under Rule 65(b)(1). The Court will deny the request for expedited consideration of the temporary restraining order because Defendants must receive notice of the complaint and motion. IT IS ORDERED that the Court will set a hearing on September 23, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. for consideration of Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. At least seven days before the date of the hearing, Plaintiff must have served or attempted to serve every Defendant in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service to each Defendant must include a copy of this order. DATED this 2nd day of September, 2010.

-2-