Prabha Saxena, et al. v. Terri Saxena, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 PRABHA SAXENA, et al., Case No.: 2:26-cv-01308-GMN-EJY 5 Plaintiffs, 6 vs. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 7 TERRI SAXENA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), 11 (ECF No. 5), filed by Plaintiffs Bhuvaneshwar Sahay Saxena and Prabha Saxena. 12 The Court declines to issue the requested TRO ex parte on an emergency basis. Rule 13 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the issuance of temporary restraining 14 orders. It provides that: 15 (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: 16

17 (A) Specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damages will result to the movant before the adverse 18 party can be heard in opposition; and

19 (B) The movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 20

21 Fed R. Civ. P. 65(b). While temporary restraining orders are at times necessary, “[t]he 22 stringent restrictions imposed by . . . Rule 65 [] on the availability of ex parte temporary 23 restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of 24 court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted 25 both sides of a dispute. Grannt Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 1 Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974). Accordingly, the procedural 2 requirements of Rule 65(b) are strictly construed. 3 Here, the Court determines that the Motion for TRO fails to comply with Rule 4 65(b)(1)(B). Plaintiffs’ Motion does not clearly show that immediate injury will result before 5 Defendants can be heard in opposition. The Court therefore declines to grant the Motion for 6 TRO ex parte. The Court instead orders service of the Motion for TRO and additional briefing 7 from the parties. 8 Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to be permitted to file electronically, 9 (ECF No. 7). A pro se litigant may request authorization to register as an electronic filed in a 10 specific case. Local Rule IC 2-1(b). Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED subject to the following: 11 • No later than May 12, 2026, Plaintiffs must file a certification that they are 12 familiar with the Electronic Case Filing Procedures and the Civil Menu E-Filing 13 Categories and Events.1 14 • Plaintiffs are not authorized to file electronically until said certification is filed 15 within the timeframe specified above. 16 • Upon timely filing of the certification, Plaintiffs must contact the CM/ECF Help 17 Desk at (702) 464-5555 to set up a CM/ECF account. 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall serve Defendants with the Complaint, 20 (ECF No. 4), Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (ECF No. 5), and a copy of this Order, 21 by Tuesday, May 5, 2026. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will then have until May 7, 2026, at 23 12:00 PM to file a Response to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 24

25 1 The Electronic Case Filing Procedures and Civil Menu E-Filing Categories and Events can all be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/e-filing-permission/. ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Pro Se Litigant to File 2 || Electronically, (ECF No. 7), is GRANTED subject to the conditions explained in this Order. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to email this A || Order to Plaintiffs at bhuvanssaxena@gmail.com. 5 DATED this 1 ___ day of May, 2026.

8 Gloria M. my arro, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 3 of 3