Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Case 5:19-cv-02520-LHK Document 187 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN DIVISION
11

12 CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK


Northern District of California
United States District Court

SYSTEMS, INC.,
13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX
Plaintiff,
PARTE APPLICATION FOR
14 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
v.
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
15
AVANCI, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 184, 185
16
Defendants.
17

18 On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for anti-suit injunction against some of the
19 defendants in the instant case. ECF No. 32. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff’s First Amended
20 Complaint added an additional defendant. ECF No. 97. On September 10, 2019, the Court denied
21 without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for anti-suit injunction. ECF No. 173. The Court stated that,
22 if Plaintiff elected to refile its motion for anti-suit injunction, Plaintiff should do so against all
23 Defendants, and that all Defendants should file one consolidated opposition. Id. As of October 8,
24 2019, Plaintiff has failed to file a new motion for an anti-suit injunction. Instead, Plaintiff filed an
25 ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why an anti-suit
26 injunction should not issue against Defendants on October 8, 2019. ECF No. 185.
27
1
28 Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Case 5:19-cv-02520-LHK Document 187 Filed 10/08/19 Page 2 of 2

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides that a court may issue a temporary

2 restraining order (“TRO”) without notice to the adverse party in limited circumstances where

3 “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable

4 injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant result to the movant before the adverse party can

5 be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The movant must also

6 certify in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

7 Fed R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B).

8 Plaintiff has not provided specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint that show

9 why irreparable harm will result to Plaintiff if the Court does not issue a temporary restraining

10 order before Defendant can be heard in opposition. Nor has Plaintiff certified in writing any

11 efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. The Court therefore

12 DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause
Northern District of California
United States District Court

13 why an anti-suit injunction should not issue against Defendants. Additionally, the Court DENIES

14 as moot Plaintiff’s corresponding motion to seal, ECF No. 184.

15 Given the complexity of the legal issues raised in Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds

16 that hearing from Defendants will likely be necessary for resolution of any future application for a

17 temporary restraining order.

18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21 Dated: October 8, 2019

22 ______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
23 United States District Judge
24

25

26
27
2
28 Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE