[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Comment noted.

There is a US District Court for the District of New Jersey. It certainly has local rules and procedures. The suit was filed in the US District Court there. I think it would be covered by both the FedR.Civ.Pro and the local (New Jersey) US District Court rules.

(But of course, since you read the underlying brief document you already knew the matter was pending in Federal court, not State court.)

[/ QUOTE ]

They filed their request for a TRO by notice of motion and not by Order to Show Cause. Hence the return date of September. Very unusual. I can't see how you get a TRO without showing exigency, and if there is exigency they would have proceeded by Order to Show Cause. I was going to say in my original response that I think this motion has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, having read the papers, but I don't want to kill the party.

By the way I practice in NJ federal court regularly and can try to answer any questions about procedure (I haven't made it all the way through the thread yet so if there's anything further below I'll respond if I can).

[/ QUOTE ]

niss, welcome to the thread, and thanks for chiming in! Since you seem to have access to the court docket (e.g., you knew about the notice of motion filed), can you tell us whether the TRO application was filed just this week (when the brief was), or earlier (with the complaint in June). Also, if you have access, were there supporting affidavits filed with that brief??? I don't see anything in that brief referring to any evidence on the record submitted by anyone with PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the facts they are arguing. Good luck with the standing argument and irreparable injury argument without and evidence!!! niss, please tell me there are supporting affidavits.

OK, just a couple more questions and I'll let you get back to work: Why in the hell would they even seek a TRO if moving under a notice of motion?!?! I mean, the whole point of a TRO is to get (usually) ex parte relief, and to get it immediately; a notice of motion (rather than OSC) isn't going to get that done. It seems to me that their TRO app is really a de facto motion for a preliminary injunction, right? Maybe NY state court practice is drastically different, but I've NEVER HEARD OF MOVING FOR A TRO BY NOTICE OF MOTION.

Finally, what's with the count in the complaint seeking a TRO?! Is that a federal court thing? In NY state practice, a TRO is an application -- a motion to be made -- perhaps simultaneously with the complaint, but not within the complaint. Since when do we include motion practice as a claim in a pleading??? Either federal practice in the area of provisional remedies is strangely different than NY state practice (which I find doubtful), or these attorneys are as*-clowns. Talk to me....