Mercola v. Varghese

Background

Dr. Joseph Mercola filed this action on May 23, 2025, and filed an amended complaint on July 18, 2025. He alleges, among other things, that the defendants defrauded him of more than $10 million in cryptocurrency assets. The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 6b of the Commodity Exchange Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, federal antiracketeering statutes, and New York common law.

On July 18, 2025, Mercola moved for a preliminary injunction and an order allowing additional expedited discovery. A preliminary injunction is a court order that can require or prohibit conduct before the case is finally decided.

Reason for the ruling

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) allows a preliminary injunction only after notice to the opposing party. The court explained that the opposing party must have enough time to gather evidence and present arguments against the injunction. Courts may require proof that the complaint and the injunction motion were served before ruling on such a motion.

Mercola had not filed proof that he served the amended complaint or the motion on the defendants, and he had not provided other evidence that they had been notified. The defendants had not appeared, so filing the motion electronically did not provide them notice through the court’s electronic filing system.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Mercola’s motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery without prejudice. The order permits Mercola to renew the motion through an order to show cause—a proposed order setting a hearing and directing the defendants to respond. The proposed order must require service of the order, amended complaint, and motion on Viji Varghese in the manner authorized by an earlier order in this action, and service on the remaining defendants as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. It must also provide deadlines for opposition and any reply, with the dates left blank for the court to complete.

Alternatively, Mercola may renew the motion after filing proof of service and after the defendants have appeared. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at Docket No. 28. The order did not decide the merits of Mercola’s underlying claims.