S&G Elite LLC v. ST National Franchising LLC
This text of S&G Elite LLC v. ST National Franchising LLC (S&G Elite LLC v. ST National Franchising LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 S&G Elite LLC, No. CV-25-00037-TUC-RM
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 ST National Franchising LLC, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff S&G Elite, LLC filed a Verified Complaint (Doc. 16 1) and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for an Order to 17 Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Be Issued (Doc. 2). Plaintiff asks 18 the Court to enter a temporary restraining order without notice enjoining Defendants ST 19 National Franchising, LLC and Tamica Lachelle Goree (a.k.a. Tamica Landaeta) from 20 “taking any action related to the [parties’] Franchise Agreement, including, but not 21 limited to, termination and removal of funds from Plaintiff’s accounts via ACH request 22 and transfer.” (Doc. 2 at 1.) 23 A temporary restraining order may be issued without written or oral notice to the 24 adverse party only if:
25 (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 26 before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give 27 notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). “Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must . 1 . . describe the injury and state why it is irreparable[, and] state why the order was issued 2 without notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). 3 Here, Plaintiff’s attorney has not certified in writing any efforts made to give 4 notice to Defendants and the reasons why notice should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 65(b)(1); see also Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th 6 Cir. 2006) (noting that issuance of an ex parte TRO is appropriate only in very few 7 circumstances, such as when an adverse party cannot be located in time for a hearing or 8 when a movant shows that the adverse party has a history of disposing of evidence or 9 violating court orders). Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met the requirements under 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) for issuance of a temporary restraining order 11 without notice. The Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s Application for 12 Temporary Restraining Order to the extent it requests issuance of a temporary restraining 13 order without notice to Defendants. 14 The Court will set an expedited hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary 15 Restraining Order and order expedited service on Defendants. 16 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order 17 (Doc. 2) is partially denied to the extent it seeks issuance of a temporary restraining 18 order without written or oral notice to Defendants, and is otherwise taken under 19 advisement. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for 21 Temporary Restraining Order is scheduled for February 6, 2025, at 11:50 a.m., before 22 the Honorable Rosemary Márquez, in Courtroom 5A of the United States District Court 23 for the District of Arizona, Evo A. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, 405 W. Congress Street, 24 Tucson, AZ 85701. 25 . . . . 26 . . . . 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve Defendants with the || Summons (Doc. 4), Verified Complaint (Doc. 1), Application for Temporary Restraining 3 || Order and Request for an Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not 4|| Be Issued (Doc. 2), and a copy of this Order on or before February 2, 2025. Defendants || may file a response to Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and 6 || Request for an Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Be Issued (Doc. 2) on or before February 5, 2025. 8 Dated this 29th day of January, 2025. 9 10 ul a □□□ 12 TD 4 tigi Z □□ Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 13 United States District □□□□□ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
S&G Elite LLC v. ST National Franchising LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sg-elite-llc-v-st-national-franchising-llc-azd-2025.