Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10 RegisterActionDate "2008-05-05" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10 RegisterActionDescriptionText "The Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO (see Doc. 4 ) is DENIED, and the court DEFERS RULING on the Plaintiff's Motion for a preliminary injunction (see Doc. 4 ), Motion for a preliminary injunction hearing (Doc. 6 ), Motion for a preservation order (Doc. 7 ), and Motion for expedited discovery (Doc. 8 ). "A temporary restraining order differs from a preliminary injunction in that, under certain circumstances, a [TRO] may be issued without notice to the adverse party." Carabello v. Beard, 2008 WL 597722, *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)). "When the opposing party actually receives notice of the application..., the procedure... does not differ functionally from that [of]... a preliminary injunction and the proceeding is not subject to any special requirements." Id. (citation omitted). Here, notice of the application has been sent to the Defendants, see Doc. 4 at 4 (Certificate of Service), but they have not been formally served with the Complaint. The court therefore cannot determine whether the Defendants have received actual notice. In any event, the Plaintiff has failed to aver "specific facts... clearly show[ing] that immediate and irreparable injury... will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition," nor has counsel "certifie[d] in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." See Rule 65(b)(1)(A)-(B). Finally, any claims of extreme urgency are belied by the Plaintiff's request for expedited pre-hearing discovery. See Doc. 8 . For these reasons, the Plaintiff's request for a TRO is DENIED. Finally, the court defers ruling on the Plaintiff's remaining requests, which contemplate the involvement of the Defendants' putative counsel in this case. Compare, e.g., Pl.'s Mots. (seeking among other things entry of preservation order and expedited discovery in connection with Defendants, one of which is corporation) with U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) ("[a] corporation may appear in federal court only through [a] licensed" attorney). Signed by Judge Francis X. Caiazza on 5/5/08. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dcd) [Transferred from Pennsylvania Western on 12/23/2008.] (Entered: 05/05/2008)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10 OntologyLabel transferred_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de5 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de7 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de8 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de10 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07323_de9 @default.