Doctor’s Health Network, Inc. v. United States Department of the Treasury

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02307
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Doctor’s Health Network, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02307-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary 6 v. Injunction

7 United States Department of the Treasury,

8 Defendant [ECF No. 2]

9 10 On November 20, 2025, plaintiff Doctor’s Health Network initiated this action by filing a 11 motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to stay the U.S. Treasury Department’s garnishment 12 of Medicare reimbursements. Mot. prelim. inj., ECF No. 2. The plaintiff filed its complaint the 13 following day. Compl., ECF No. 4. To date, neither the complaint nor the motion for preliminary 14 injunction have been properly served. As a result, as explained herein, the motion for a 15 preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice. 16 I. Discussion 17 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 18 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Fraihat v. U.S. 19 Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 16 F.4th 613, 635 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 20 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted)). To obtain an injunction, a plaintiff “must 21 establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 22 the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 23 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The 24 Ninth Circuit uses a “sliding scale approach to preliminary injunctions.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. 25 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Under that approach, “‘serious questions going to the 26 merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of 1 a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of 2 irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Fraihat, 16 F.4th at 636 3 (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135) (citation modified). 4 Although the motion addresses the Winter factors, I deny it for several reasons. First, the 5 complaint has not been properly served on the defendant. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff must serve a defendant with a summons and copy of the complaint 7 “within 90 days after the complaint is filed[.]” Though the 90-day period has not run yet, 8 because plaintiff is suing the U.S. Treasury, service must be effectuated in accordance with 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). If a defendant is not served in accordance with Rule 4, 10 there is no personal jurisdiction. See Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982) 11 (citing Beecher v. Wallace, 381 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1967)). 12 Rule 4(i) provides that in order “[t]o serve the United States, a party must: (A)(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States 13 attorney for the district where the action is brought—or to an assistant United 14 States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk—or 15 (ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office; 16 (B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.; and 17 (C) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the United States, send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the agency or officer.” 18 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1). 20 The plaintiff’s certificate of service indicates that a “copy of the Complaint, Summons, 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Declaration of Mark A. Cole in Support of Motion for 22 Preliminary Injunction” was mailed via the U.S. Postal Service to the “Civil Process Clerk, US 23 Attorney’s Office, 501 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89101,” the “United 24 State[s] Attorney, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20530,” 25 and “US Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20220.” 26 1 See Cert. of serv., ECF No. 7. The certificate indicates the copy was incorrectly mailed to the 2 wrong U.S. Attorney’s Office suite number. See www.justice.gov/usao-nv (last accessed Dec. 8, 3 2025) (identifying the address as “501 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 1100, Las Vegas, NV 4 89101”). Further, Rule 4(i) requires that a copy of the summons and complaint be delivered to the 5 United States attorney for the district where the action is brought—or to an assistant United 6 States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates in a writing 7 filed with the court clerk. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1) (emphasis added). In the alternative, the 8 plaintiff can “send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the 9 United States attorney’s office.” Id. at (ii). Per the certificate of service, the pleadings were sent 10 via regular U.S. mail, not certified or registered. And the certificate of service indicates the 11 pleadings were mailed to the “US Attorney” at the Department of Justice, not the Attorney 12 General as required. Again, they were mailed via regular mail, not certified or registered. Thus, 13 service is improper, and the motion must be denied. 14 Finally, because the motion has not been served, it is effectively an ex parte request for 15 injunctive relief. “The opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely limited.” 16 Lum v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2012 WL 13012454, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2012) (citation 17 omitted). In order to justify ex parte relief, the moving party must: (1) set forth evidence 18 “show[ing] that the moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion 19 is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures”; and (2) “establish[] that the moving 20 party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis 21 occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 22 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden to prove ex parte relief is warranted 23 here. See id. (ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and are rarely granted). 24 Consequently, the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. 25 26 1 IL. Conclusion 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF No. 2] is DENIED without prejudice. ) 4 Dated: December 9, 2025 /, /

6 Crisfing’D. Silva ; tual States District Judge / 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26