Morales Renteral v. JNB Transport, LLC et al
ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2) and with the consent of Defendants, the court extends the 9 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)--temporarily enjoining and restraining Defendants from destroying, delet ing or altering, and ordering Defendants to preserve, all items, documents, information and ESI listed in the TRO in their possession, custody, or control--until 6/14/2023. A Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for 6/14/2023 at 01:30 PM in Topeka Courtroom 401 (TC) before District Judge Toby Crouse. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 5/18/2023. (byk)
Case 2:23-cv-02191-TC-TJJ Document 16 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ALEJANDRO MORALES RENTERAL,
JNB TRANSPORT, LLC,
BLUE FREIGHT LOGISTICS, INC.,
AND LUIS ORLANDO GUTIERREZGUEVARA
Case No. 23-cv-2191-TC-TJJ
ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On May 16, 2023, the court conducted a hearing via Zoom videoconference on Plaintiff’s
request for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff appeared through counsel, Jeffrey A. Wilson. All
Defendants appeared through counsel, Kevin McMaster.1 After hearing from the parties, the
court enters the following Order:
Defendants object to Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction arguing, among
other things, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants contend Plaintiff has not
satisfied the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) to show “the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” so as to establish diversity jurisdiction
in this case. Defendants’ deadline to answer or file a pleading in response to Plaintiff’s
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) has not yet expired.2
Mr. McMaster entered his appearance on May 16, 2023, prior to the court’s hearing. The court
finds that Defendants, through their counsel of record, were provided proper and timely notice of the May
16, 2023 hearing.
At the time of the hearing, counsel were not aware of the date(s) on which the Defendants were
served but believed the service date(s) was/were on or about May 8, 2023.
Case 2:23-cv-02191-TC-TJJ Document 16 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 3
Given the jurisdictional issue raised by Defendants, rather than rule on the request
for preliminary injunction at this time, the court finds good cause to extend the Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 9) entered on May 4, 2023 to allow Defendants time to file a motion
to dismiss with proper legal authorities asserting their subject matter jurisdiction defense prior to
final hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2) and
with the consent of Defendants, the court extends the Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 9)
—temporarily enjoining and restraining Defendants from destroying, deleting or altering, and
ordering Defendants to preserve, all items, documents, information and ESI listed in the TRO in
their possession, custody, or control—until June 14, 2023.3 The court will continue the
preliminary injunction hearing to June 14, 2023, as well.
During the May 16th hearing, the court also requested updates from counsel.
Defendants’ counsel advised that the dashcam and black box from the truck at issue in the
subject accident are currently in his custody. Pursuant to the TRO, the truck’s dashcam and black
box are to be preserved in their current condition, and the court orders that they shall remain in
Mr. McMaster’s custody until the parties reach an agreement regarding the downloading and
preservation of the ESI contained therein or until otherwise ordered by the court.
The court instructed counsel to confer in good faith regarding an ESI Protocol to
govern all electronic discovery in the case, including specifically the logistics and timing of the
At the May 16th hearing, Defendants agreed to the extension to June 14, 2023, which is more
than 14 days from entry of the Temporary Restraining Order, in order to allow Defendants sufficient time
to file a motion to dismiss before final hearing on Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction.
Defendants therefore also agreed, if they are going to file a motion to dismiss based upon lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, they will do so prior to June 14, 2023. Counsel for the parties also briefly discussed
the possibility that further continuance of the preliminary injunction hearing might be necessary if
Defendants do file a motion to dismiss, in order to allow the motion to be fully briefed prior to hearing.
However, no agreement was reached regarding this during the hearing.
Case 2:23-cv-02191-TC-TJJ Document 16 Filed 05/18/23 Page 3 of 3
imaging of the cell phone and devices at issue, and for downloading the truck dashcam and black
Counsel shall be prepared to report on the status of their proposed ESI Protocol at
the next hearing, unless they submit their proposed ESI protocol to the undersigned’s chambers
prior to the hearing.
The preliminary injunction hearing is continued to June 14, 2023 at 1:30 PM, in
person, before the Honorable Toby Crouse, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 401 of
the Federal Courthouse located at 444 S.E. Quincy, Topeka, Kansas 66683.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated May 18, 2023, at Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?