First 100, LLC et al v. Lasala et al

Filing 24

ORDER that 5 Motion to Declare Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order Void is DENIED as Moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 Countermotion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall have 14 days from the date of this Order to file a response brief with the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/13/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

FIRST 100, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company; and 1ST ONE HUNDRED
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company,

6

Plaintiffs,
7
8
9
10
11
12

vs.
JOHN LASALA, an individual; IAN HAFT,
an individual; JAMIE MAI, an individual;
CHA SOLUTIONS INC., a foreign
corporation; CORNWALL CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LP, a foreign corporation;
DOES I through X; and ROE ENTITIES I
through X, inclusive,
Defendants.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01460-GMN-CWH
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Declare Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining

15

Order Void (ECF No. 5) filed by Defendant John Lasala (“Defendant Lasala”). Plaintiffs First

16

100, LLC and 1st One Hundred Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Response and

17

Countermotion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order (ECF Nos. 17–18), and Defendant

18

Lasala filed a Reply (ECF No. 21).

19

I.

20

BACKGROUND
This action was originally filed in state court and removed to this Court on September

21

10, 2014, by Defendant Lasala, with the joinder of Defendants Ian Haft, Jamie Mai, Cha

22

Solutions, Inc., and Cornwall Capital Management LP (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Pet.

23

for Removal, ECF No. 1; see also Notice, ECF No. 4). An ex parte TRO was originally issued

24

in state court on September 4, 2014, and a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

25

Injunction was scheduled in state court on September 17, 2014. Because Defendant Lasala

Page 1 of 3

1

removed the action to this Court before September 17, 2014, the state court did not have an

2

opportunity to hear Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. After removal, Defendant

3

Lasala filed the instant Motion to Declare Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order Void (ECF

4

No. 5), asserting that the ex parte TRO issued in state court is void because “Plaintiffs failed to

5

comply with Nevada law in exacting and/or posting the mandatory bond prior to filing the

6

TRO.” (Def.’s Motion 1:20–24, ECF No. 5). On the other hand, Plaintiffs’ filed a

7

Countermotion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 17), requesting that the

8

Court “extend the temporary restraining order until Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction

9

may be heard.” (Pls.’ Countermotion 4:1–2, ECF No. 17). During the pendency of both

10

motions, Defendants Ian Haft, Jamie Mai, Cha Solutions, Inc., and Cornwall Capital

11

Management LP were voluntarily dismissed from the action, and Defendant Lasala is the sole

12

remaining Defendant in the action. (Notice, ECF No. 23).

13

II.

14

DISCUSSION
The Court recognizes that Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) addresses temporary

15

restraining orders, which have been issued without notice by the state court, as is the case here,

16

and provides exceptions for when those TROs may be extended:

17
18
19

shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed
15 days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the
order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless
the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be
extended for a longer period.

20
21

Nev. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (emphasis added). Thus, a plaintiff may request an extension before the

22

expiration date of a temporary restraining order.

23

Here, the ex parte TRO was issued on September 4, 2014, and Plaintiffs’ posted bond on

24

September 9, 2014. At the latest, the ex parte TRO expired on September 24, 2014—fifteen

25

days after Plaintiffs’ posted bond. After September 24, 2014, the ex parte TRO was expired

Page 2 of 3

1

and the Court was unable to grant an extension. Plaintiffs’ did not request an extension until

2

October 2, 2014. Therefore, the request for extension was untimely, and the Court must deny

3

Plaintiffs’ Countermotion.

4

Accordingly, in light of the dismissal of all defendants except Defendant Lasala, the

5

Court orders that Plaintiffs’ show cause as to whether it still wishes to be heard on its

6

Preliminary Injunction Motion. If so, Plaintiffs’ may renew its Motion, and the Court will set a

7

briefing schedule and set the Motion for hearing.

8

III.

9
10
11
12
13

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Lasala’s Motion to Declare Ex-Parte

Temporary Restraining Order Void (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Countermotion to Extend Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ show cause as to whether it still wishes to

14

be heard on its Preliminary Injunction Motion. Plaintiffs’ shall have 14 days from the date of

15

this Order to file a response brief with the Court, not to exceed 5 pages.

16

DATED this 13th day of March, 2015.

17
18
19
20
21
22

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

23
24
25

Page 3 of 3