Ý ¿- »êæ

ï è ó½ª óðï í î î óÎ Þ Ü óÜ Ý × Ü ±½«³ »²¬è Ú ·´

»¼ ðç ñðë ñï è Ð ¿¹»ï ±º ì Ð ¿¹»×Ü è ç

UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT
MIDDLE DISTRICTOFFLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

OPEN FOUNDATION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.6:18-cv-1322-Orl-37DCI

LOCALVENTURES& INVESTMENTS,
LLC;and DENNISLEW IS,

Defendants.
_____________________________________

O RDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Tem porary Restraining Order and

Prelim inary Injunction.(Doc.7(“M ot

ion”).)On review ,the Motion isdue to be denied.

I. P R O C E D UR A L H ISTO R Y

Plaintiff, through counsel, initiated this action alleging that Defendants

im properly took ow nership of Ethereum Tokens (“E TH ”).(See Doc.4 (A m en ded

”).)According to the Am ended Com plaint,Plaintiff transferred the ETH to

C om pla in t

Defendantsfor a lim ited purpose and,despite repeated requests,Defendantshave not

returned Plaintiff’sproperty.(Id. ¶¶ 1–4.)Now Plaintiff filed the Motion asking the Court

to issue botha tem poraryrestraining order and prelim inaryinjunction in order to protect

itsETH.(Doc.7,p.1.)

II. LE G A L STA N DA RDS

The Court is authorized to issue a tem porary restraining order in lim ited

circum stances.See Fed.R.Civ.P.65(b)(1);Local Rule 4.05(a).The Court m ay grant such

-1-
 Ý ¿- »êæ
ï è ó½ª óðï í î î óÎ Þ Ü óÜ Ý × Ü ±½«³ »²¬è Ú ·´
»¼ ðç ñðë ñï è Ð ¿¹»î ±º ì Ð ¿¹»×Ü ç ð

relief in accordance w ithRule 65onlyif:

(1) “specific factsin an affidavit or a verified com plaint

clearly show that im m ediate and irreparable injury,
loss,or dam age w ill result to the m ovant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A) (“Verifica t
ion
R equirem ent ”);

(2) the m ovant “certifies in w riting any efforts m ade to

give notice and the reasonsw hy[notice]should not be
required” (“C ertifica t
ion R equirem ent ”),
Fed.R.Civ.P.65(b)(1)(B);and

(3) the m ovant “givessecurityin an am ount that the court

considers proper to pay the costs and dam ages
sustained byanypartyfound to have been w rongfully
enjoined or restrained” (“Securit y R equirem ent ”),
Fed.R.Civ.P.65(c).

In addition,Local Rule 4.05(b)requires that the m ovant present its m otion in the

follow ing m anner:

(1) the m ovant m ust request injunctive relief “by a

separate m otion”w ithan identifying title;

(2) the m ovant m ust support the m otion w ith“allegations

of specific factsshow n in the verified com plaint or
accom panying affidavits,not only that the m oving
party is threatened w ith irreparable injury,but that
suchinjuryisso im m inent that notice and a hearing on
the application for prelim inary injunction is
im practical if not im possible“ (“Specific F a ct s
R equirem ent ”);

(3) the m otion also m ust include:

(a) a precise description of the conduct sought to

be enjoined [(“D escript ”)];
ion R equirem ent

(b) factson w hichthe Court can m ake a reasoned

determ ination as to the am ount of security

-2-
 Ý ¿- »êæ
ï è ó½ª óðï í î î óÎ Þ Ü óÜ Ý × Ü ±½«³ »²¬è Ú ·´
»¼ ðç ñðë ñï è Ð ¿¹»í ±º ì Ð ¿¹»×Ü ç ï

w hichm ust be posted pursuant to Rule 65(c)”

(“B ondF a ct
sR equirem ent”);

(c) “a proposed form ...order prepared in strict

accordance w ith the several requirem ents
contained in” Rule 65(a)and (d)(“Proposed
O rderR equirem ent”);and

(d) “or be accom panied by a supporting legal

m em orandum or brief” (“B rief
”).
R equirem ent

III. A N A LYSIS

Here,the Motion presentsw ith several flaw s.First,it failsto com ply w ith the

requirem ent that injunctive relief be requested “bya separate m otion.”Local Rule 4.05(a).

Rather,the Motion lum ps together a m otion for a tem porary restraining order and a

m otion for prelim inary injunction.Thisdeficiency cannot be ignored.See, e.g.,Hammer v.

Bank of Am.,No.8:13-cv-1910-33AEP,2013W L3866532,at *4 (M.D.Fla.Jul.25,2013)

(noting that the technical deficienciesin plaintiffs’m otion for injunctive relief justified

denial of the m otion).

Furtherm ore,the Motion does not m eet the Specific FactsRequirem ent,asthe

circum stancesoutlined do not sufficiently dem onstrate severe or irreparable injury w ill

result if the extrem e rem edy of a TRO isnot aw arded.(See Doc.7,pp.7–12.)Although

Plaintiff proposesthese circum stancesconstitute an “em ergency,”the Court seesnothing

here to m erit that extraordinary label.Last,the Motion doesnot m eet the Bond Facts

Requirem ents,but instead assertsin a conclusory fashion that no bond isnecessaryhere.

(Id. at 15–16.)Not so.W hether a partyshall be required to post a bond isup to the Court,

and the Court rejectsPlaintiff’scontraryclaim .W ith these issues,the Motion isdue to be

-3-
 Ý ¿- »êæ
ï è ó½ª óðï í î î óÎ Þ Ü óÜ Ý × Ü ±½«³ »²¬è Ú ·´
»¼ ðç ñðë ñï è Ð ¿¹»ì ±º ì Ð ¿¹»×Ü ç î

denied.

IV. CO N C LUSIO N

Accordingly,it is O R D E R E D A N D A D JUD G E D that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Tem porary Restraining Order and Prelim inary Injunction (Doc. 7) is D E N IE D

W ITH O UTPR E JUD IC E .Plaintiff iscautioned that anym otion reasserting the need for

injunctive relief m ust strictlycom plyw iththisOrder,Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65,

and Local Rule 4.05.

D O N E A N D O R D E R E D in Cham bersin Orlando,Florida,on Septem ber 5,2018.

Copiesto:
Counsel of Record

-4-