Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER re Plaintiff Digital Mentor, Inc.'s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. # 11 ). After review of the submitted Motion and supporting documents, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). The parties are referred to Local Rule 65 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for further instruction. Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

DIGITAL MENTOR, INC.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14

v.

ORDER

OVIVO USA, LLC; OVIVO US
HOLDING INC.; VALERE
MORISSETTE; MARC BARBEAU; and
DOES 1 to 20,
Defendants.

15
16

Case No. C17-1935-RAJ

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Digital Mentor, Inc.’s Ex Parte

17

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. # 11. Federal

18

Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) states that the Court may issue a temporary restraining

19

order without notice to the adverse party only if: “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a

20

verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage

21

will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the

22

movant’s attorney certified in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons

23

why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Plaintiff files its Motion ex parte

24

under the premise that it will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not issue the

25

temporary restraining order without notice to Defendants.

26

Pursuant to Local Rule 65, “[m]otions for temporary restraining orders without

27

notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the adverse party are disfavored and will

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

rarely be granted.” Local Rule 65(b)(5) further states that the adverse party must file its
response, if any, within forty-eight hours after the motion is served. Plaintiff includes
proof of service of its Motion and supporting documents to Defendants and Defendants’
counsel. Dkt. # 11 Ex. 21. As Defendants received notice of Plaintiff’s Motion and filed
a Notice of Intent to oppose it, Plaintiff is simply requesting that the Court rule on its
Motion without giving Defendants an opportunity to respond. Dkt. # 13. Plaintiff makes
no convincing argument that it will suffer irreparable harm by the addition of the short
time allowed to Defendants to file a response to its Motion before a ruling is issued.
After review of the submitted Motion and supporting documents, the Court finds that
Plaintiff does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). The
parties are referred to Local Rule 65 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for further
instruction.
DATED this 18th day of January, 2018.

14

16

A

17

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

15

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2