Hurlock v. Kelsier Ventures
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-03891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hurlock v. Kelsier Ventures, Judge Rochon denied Davis’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order, finding it remained binding pending further proceedings.
The ruling directly affected Defendant Hayden Davis and Plaintiff Omar Hurlock. It kept the temporary restraining order binding on Davis for now and preserved the schedule for further briefing and a preliminary-injunction hearing; the order also directed counsel for all parties to attend a remote conference unless the parties agreed it was unnecessary.
What happened
In Hurlock v. Kelsier Ventures, the court had issued a temporary restraining order and later extended it while setting a schedule for briefing and a hearing on a possible preliminary injunction. Defendant Hayden Davis later appeared for the limited purpose of challenging that order.
Davis argued that the order had expired, was not binding because he had not been formally served, and was ineffective because Plaintiff’s bond was posted late. The court rejected those arguments for now, finding that Davis had consented to the extension through his conduct, had received actual notice by email, and was no longer able to rely on the missing bond because Plaintiff had posted it. The court also said the request for a hearing within two days misunderstood the governing rule.
Judge Rochon denied Davis’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order at this stage. She kept the existing schedule, including a July 21 preliminary-injunction hearing, while ordering counsel to attend a July 1 remote conference to discuss whether an earlier schedule was needed.
The detailed version
- Hurlock v. Kelsier Ventures · No. 1:25-cv-03891
- Rochon
- June 27, 2025
Background
On May 27, 2025, the court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order, meaning an emergency order issued before the opposing side had fully participated. The order was filed publicly on May 29. It required the defendants to appear on June 9 and explain why a preliminary injunction should not continue the restrictions during the case. It also set deadlines for opposition and reply papers.
Defendant Benjamin Chow, identified as the only appearing defendant at that point, asked to adjourn the hearing and extend the deadline for opposition papers. Chow agreed to follow the temporary restraining order while the motion was pending. The court granted the request, kept the order in place by agreement until a rescheduled hearing, and later set a July 21, 2025 preliminary-injunction hearing and related briefing deadlines.
Motion to Dissolve
On June 24, 2025, counsel for Defendant Hayden Davis made a limited appearance to challenge the temporary restraining order and moved to dissolve it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(4). Davis argued, among other things, that the order expired after fourteen days because he had not consented to its extension and the court had not established good cause; that the order was ineffective because he had not been properly served with the summons and complaint; and that Plaintiff had not timely posted the required bond.
Plaintiff responded that the existing temporary-restraining-order and preliminary-injunction schedule should remain in place. Plaintiff also filed notice that the bond had been paid.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found that the temporary restraining order had been validly extended beyond fourteen days and remained binding on Davis. The court stated that Davis’s counsel knew about the extension and participated in later scheduling communications but did not object until nearly four weeks after the extension was granted. Based on that conduct, the court found that Davis had consented to the extension until the court ruled on the pending motions.
The court separately held that the order remained binding because Davis had actual notice of it by email. Under Rule 65, an injunction or temporary restraining order may bind a party who receives actual notice through personal service or another method. The court said Davis’s other arguments about personal jurisdiction could be addressed in the briefing and at the preliminary-injunction hearing.
The court also rejected Davis’s argument that it had to hear his motion within two days. The court explained that Rule 65(b)(4) requires two days’ notice to the party that obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order, but requires the court to hear and decide the motion as promptly as justice requires; it does not require the court to hold the hearing within two days.
Finally, the court found that Plaintiff’s late posting of the required bond no longer supported dissolving the order because the bond had since been posted. The court called the delay improper and unjustified, noted that the bond had been deemed nominal, and said the bond’s adequacy could be addressed in later briefing and at the upcoming hearing. The court admonished counsel not to repeat similar conduct or violate future court orders.
Disposition and Further Proceedings
Judge Rochon denied Defendant Davis’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order at this juncture. The court found that the current expedited briefing schedule and the July 21 hearing supported allowing fuller briefing on the issues. It also directed counsel for all parties, including Davis, to appear by remote videoconference on July 1, 2025, to discuss whether an earlier briefing schedule or hearing was necessary. The order did not decide whether a preliminary injunction should ultimately issue.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.