M & M Packaging, Inc. v. Mineo
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-05739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In M & M Packaging v. Mineo, Judge Vyskocil declined an immediate restraining order without otherwise ruling on the company’s request for preliminary relief.
M & M Packaging, Inc.’s request for immediate temporary relief was not granted at this stage; the defendants had not yet been served, and the court preserved the possibility of later briefing on the preliminary-injunction request.
What happened
M & M Packaging, Inc. sued Vincent Mineo, Jessica Mineo, Karen Mineo, Michael Mineo, Nicholas Mineo, and John Does 1–25, then asked for an immediate restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Neither the complaint nor the motion had been served on the defendants.
The court said M & M Packaging did not follow the court’s rule requiring the plaintiff to contact the opposing side before seeking this relief. The motion also did not show the specific facts required for an immediate order without first hearing from the defendants.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil declined to enter the immediate restraining order and did not otherwise rule on the motion at that time. The court said it would set a schedule for briefing on the request for a preliminary injunction after service and the defendants’ appearance.
The detailed version
- M & M Packaging, Inc. v. Mineo · No. 1:24-cv-05739
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 9, 2024
Background
M & M Packaging, Inc. filed this action on July 30, 2024, and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction the same day. The opinion states that neither the complaint nor the motion had been served on the defendants.
Court’s analysis
The court’s Individual Rule 6.B requires a party seeking a temporary restraining order to confer with the opposing side before filing the request, unless the requirements for an order without notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) are met. The rule also requires the party to call the court’s chambers and state whether the opposing side was notified or whether Rule 65(b) permits proceeding without notice.
The court found that M & M Packaging did not comply with this Individual Rule. The court also found that the motion did not establish the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order—an order issued before the opposing party has an opportunity to respond. Under Rule 65(b), specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint must clearly show that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard, and the attorney must certify in writing the efforts made to provide notice and why notice should not be required.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the court declines to enter an ex parte temporary restraining order and does not otherwise rule on M & M Packaging’s motion at that time. The court further ordered that it will set a briefing schedule on the portion of the motion seeking a preliminary injunction after M & M Packaging serves the complaint and motion on the defendants and the defendants appear in the action. After reviewing full briefing, the court will decide whether a hearing is appropriate or necessary.
The order warns that failure to comply with the court’s orders, deadlines, Individual Rules, or Local Rules may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, exclusion of information, or exclusion or dismissal of claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.