GNLV, Corp. v. Southeast Amusement, Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER Denying 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff shall serve its pending 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction on all Defendants and file certification of said service by 1/22/2014. Resp onse to 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction due by 2/5/2014. Motion Hearing re 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for 2/11/2014 02:00 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 01/13/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

GNLV, CORP., a Nevada corporation,
4
5
6
7
8
9

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
SOUTHEAST AMUSEMENT, INC., a foreign )
entity; BAR OF GOLD, a foreign entity; and )
MIKOL WILSON, an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00048-GMN-PAL
ORDER

10
11

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2)

12

filed by Plaintiff GNLV, Corp. (“Plaintiff”). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and the

13

Exhibits attached thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that it is entitled to

14

the requested relief.

15

Rule 65(b) authorizes a court to issue a temporary restraining order without notice.

16

However, a court may grant a motion for temporary restraining order only if that motion

17

includes “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that

18

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse

19

party can be heard in opposition,” as well as written certification from the movant’s attorney

20

stating “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R.

21

Civ. P. 65(b).

22

Here, although Plaintiff discusses each of the prongs of the Winter test, Plaintiff has

23

failed to provide any basis from which the Court can conclude that the requested relief should

24

be granted without notice to Defendants. In fact, any discussion of the requirements of Rule

25

Page 1 of 2

1

65(b) is wholly absent from Plaintiff’s motion.1 Therefore, the Court cannot issue the

2

requested temporary restraining order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

3
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(ECF No. 2) is DENIED.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff shall serve its pending Motion for Preliminary

6

Injunction (ECF No. 3) on all Defendants and file certification of said service on the docket by

7

January 22, 2014. Defendants shall file a Response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for

8

Preliminary Injunction, if any, by February 5, 2014.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiff’s pending motion for
Preliminary Injunction is set for Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 2:00 PM.
13
January
DATED this _____ day of _____________, 2014.

11
12
13
14
15
16

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25

Furthermore, Plaintiff expressly states that it has been aware of the alleged infringement since December 7,
2013, yet failed to request this temporary restraining order until more than a month later on January 10, 2014.
(Mot. for TRO 4:5-7, ECF No. 2.) Such delay further undermines any potential necessity to issue the requested
injunction without notice to Defendants.

Page 2 of 2