Innovativ Media Group, Inc. v. Beys

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 24, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01362
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 4 Innovativ Media Group, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01362-CDS-VCF

5 Plaintiff, v. 6 Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for 7 Michael Beys; Richard De Silva; FTE Temporary Restraining Order Networks Inc.,

8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Innovativ Media Group, Inc.’s emergency motion for an ex 11 parte temporary restraining order.1 ECF Nos. 2; 11. Defendants have not yet responded. However, 12 due to defects in Plaintiff’s filing, I deny Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and grant Plaintiff 13 leave to re-file their motion in conformity with the local rules. 14 I. Discussion 15 Innovativ requests an ex parte temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant FTE 16 Networks from hosting an “abruptly scheduled” August 29, 2022, shareholder meeting, or from 17 conducting any other shareholder meeting. ECF No. 11 at 1-2. Currently, I express no opinion on 18 the merits of Innovativ’s request. 19 However, Innovativ must refile their temporary restraining order to comport with the 20 local rules of this district and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both the Federal and Local 21 Rules govern ex parte requests to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); LR IA 7-2. Specifically, “an ex 22 parte motion…must articulate the rule that permits ex parte filing and explain why it is filed on an 23 ex parte basis.” LR IA 7-2(b). Plaintiff’s motion states that the temporary restraining order is 24 made “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)-(b) and LR 7-4[.]” ECF No. 11 at 1. However, Fed. R. Civ.

1 The initial motion was corrected after filing; the operative pleading that I now consider was filed on August 24, 2022. ECF No. 11. 1 P. 65(b) demands that “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice 2 and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Innovativ’s counsel 3 has not filed a declaration stating any effort made to give Defendants notice or why this Court 4 should issue a temporary restraining order without notice. See generally ECF No. 11. 5 Given the “extraordinary remedy” of injunctive relief, heightened by the fact that such 6 relief is requested on an ex parte basis, Plaintiff’s filings must conform with the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court has explained that the circumstances justifying the 8 issuance of an ex parte order are extremely limited: 9 The stringent restrictions imposed…by Rule 65 on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs 10 counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute. Ex parte 11 temporary restraining orders are no doubt necessary in certain circumstances, but under federal law they should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of 12 preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is 13 necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer. 14 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974) (internal citation omitted). 15 “Consistent with this overriding concern, courts have recognized very few circumstances 16 justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 17 (9th Cir. 2006) (italics added). The Ninth Circuit has found that to be enforceable, temporary 18 restraining orders must meet the fair notice requirement. See id. at 1134 (finding a TRO improperly 19 issued ex parte in part because it “failed to meet even the most minimal fair notice requirement”). 20 Consequently, Plaintiff must refile their proposed temporary restraining order with a 21 declaration detailing Plaintiff’s effort to give notice to Defendants and justifying this Court’s 22 potential issuance of a temporary restraining order without providing Defendants an 23 opportunity to be heard.

24 1 II. Conclusion 2 I HEREBY ORDER that Plaintiff Innovativ Media Group, Inc.’s emergency motion for an 3 ex parte restraining order (ECF No. 2) be DENIED without prejudice. 4 I FURTHER ORDER that Plaintiff be granted leave to re-file their motion in conformity 5 with this Order, as well as both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District’s local 6 rules. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED this August 24, 2022 9 10 _________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24