Case Activity (521)

1. Order | Filed: August 04, 2026 | Entered: August 04, 2026 GILLON v. RECHOV TIDHAR, LLC et al

   Civil Rights: Other | New Jersey

   Text Order

   TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon receipt of Plaintiff's "Summons Returned Executed." (ECF No. 14 .) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 65 requires a party seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to give "notice" to the adverse party absent a showing of good cause for the Court to rule on the Motion on an ex parte basis. This "notice" requirement is often considered "more relaxed" than the requirements for formal service of process under Rule 4. See Wright v. Elite Revenue Sols., LLC, No. 23-00597, 2024 WL 4941019, at *2 n.9 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2024) (finding that the plaintiff's attempts to mail the complaint to the defendant and deliver a copy to the defendant's former attorney "might be adequate to satisfy the more relaxed notice requirement of Rule 65, provided [the defendant] has received actual notice of the plaintiff's motions for interim injunctive relief"); Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 433 n.7 (1974) (noting that Rule 65(b)'s requirement that a party seeking a TRO without notice certify in writing any efforts made to give notice recognizes "the fact that informal notice and a hastily arranged hearing are to be preferred to no notice or hearing at all"); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. MCC Int'l Corp., Civ. No. 22-12281, 2024 WL 1508281, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) (finding that "the idea that service is required is refuted by the plain language of Rule 65" (citation modified)) (collecting cases). The Court finds that Plaintiff's attempts to effect service, while insufficient to satisfy the formal service requirements of Rule 4, are sufficient to give Defendants "notice" of Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO under Rule 65. The Court directs Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO, (ECF No. 3 ), by August 10, 2026. Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, by August 14, 2026. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Text Order on Defendants via electronic mail. So Ordered by Judge Georgette Castner on 8/4/2026. (jmh)

2. Motion | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 30, 2026 Cory Honickman et al v. Amwest Funding Corp. et al

   Civil Rights: Other | California Central

   Order

   PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION FOR REVIEW OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S JULY 20, 2026 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT (DKT. 38); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CORY HONICKMAN, PsyD; DECLARATION OF XHEVAIR KLOBOCISTA; [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Plaintiff Cory Honickman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (mrv)

3. 519 additional result(s)