General Cigar Co., Inc. v. Cohiba Caribbean&apos S Finest Inc. Et Al - Document No. 20
Uploaded by
Justia.comGeneral Cigar Co., Inc. v. Cohiba Caribbean&apos S Finest Inc. Et Al - Document No. 20
Uploaded by
Justia.comGeneral Cigar Co., Inc. v. Cohiba Caribbean's Finest Inc. et al Doc.
20
Case 2:06-cv-00575-BES-GWF Document 20 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11 GENERAL CIGAR CO., INC., a Delaware 2:06-CV-575-BES-GWF
corporation,
12
Plaintiff, ORDER
13
v.
14
COHIBA CARIBBEAN’S FINEST INC., a
15 Nevada Corporation, DATA COMMODITIES
LTD., a Bahamian Corporation,
16 RECIGARS.COM, INC. a/k/a r&e cigars, a
Tennessee sole proprietorship, PETER
17 GNECCO, RICHARD W. HILLS, JR.,
RAMSAY ELIAS PEREZ and TRACY KEYS,
18
Defendants.
19 ___________________________________
20 Currently before this Court is Plaintiff General Cigar Co., Inc.’s Ex Parte Request for
21 Issuance of Order to Show Cause and Other Relief (“Ex Parte Request” (#3)) and Motion for
22 Preliminary Injunction And For An Order to Show Cause, Establishing an Expedited Briefing
23 and Hearing Schedule, and Requiring Preservation of Business Records and Other Potential
24 Evidence (“Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#5)). The relief requested in the Ex Parte
25 Request is couched in terms of a temporary restraining order. As such, the Court will treat the
26 Ex Parte Request as a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
27 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), a district court may grant a temporary
28 restraining order ex parte if the following requirements are met:
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00575-BES-GWF Document 20 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
1 (1) it clearly appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified
complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
2 applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in
opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the
3 efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons
supporting the claim that notice should not be required. FED . R. CIV. P. 65(b).
4
The stringent requirements of Rule 65(b) recognize that “our entire jurisprudence runs
5
counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be
6
heard has been granted both sides of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood
7
of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974). Because of this underlying jurisprudential policy,
8
“[r]estraining order applications sought ex parte require the court to serve as the absent party’s
9
advocate, triggering intense judicial scrutiny of [the moving party’s] claims, the relief it seeks,
10
and most importantly, its proffered justification for proceeding ex parte.” Adobe Sys., Inc. v.
11
South Sun Prods., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 636, 639 (S.D. Cal. 1999). Applying these principles, the
12
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of Rule 65(b).
13
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Request for Issuance of Order
14
to Show Cause and Other Relief (#3) is DENIED.
15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve their opposition to
16
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, if any, on or before May 17, 2006. Plaintiff shall
17
file and serve its reply brief, if any, on or before May 22, 2006. The Court’s Deputy will contact
18
the parties to schedule a hearing on this matter.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
DATED: This 11th day of May, 2006.
21
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
