Elfand v. City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-07170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jonathan C. Elfand v. City of New York, Judge Cronan required notice and briefing before deciding Plaintiffs’ emergency injunction request.
Jonathan C. Elfand and Lenore Elfand must serve the City of New York and the other defendants, who may oppose the emergency request under the briefing schedule.
What happened
In Jonathan C. Elfand v. City of New York, pro se Plaintiffs Jonathan C. Elfand and Lenore Elfand asked the court to temporarily stop alleged warrantless searches, padlocking, and enforcement actions involving their business, Empire Cannabis Clubs.
The court found that the requirements for an emergency order without first notifying the defendants had not been met. The Plaintiffs had not clearly shown that immediate, irreparable harm would occur before the defendants could respond, and they had not provided the required written certification explaining their efforts to give notice and why notice should not be required.
The court did not decide the merits of the emergency request. Judge John P. Cronan ordered the Plaintiffs to promptly serve the defendants with the complaint, the emergency request, supporting papers, and the order. After proof of service is filed, the defendants have fourteen days to respond and the Plaintiffs have seven days to reply.
The detailed version
- Elfand v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-07170
- John Cronan
- Sept. 1, 2025
Background
On August 28, 2025, pro se Plaintiffs Jonathan C. Elfand and Lenore Elfand sued the City of New York and other governmental defendants. The complaint raised constitutional claims concerning alleged searches of the Plaintiffs’ business, Empire Cannabis Clubs.
The Plaintiffs filed a proposed order asking for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. They sought to temporarily prevent the defendants from entering the business’s storefront locations without a warrant, conducting warrantless searches, padlocking the premises, or enforcing certain challenged state and local laws. They also filed supporting affirmations concerning alleged irreparable harm.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 places stringent limits on temporary restraining orders issued without giving the opposing parties notice. The court concluded that those requirements were not satisfied. First, the Plaintiffs had not clearly shown that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would occur before the defendants could be heard. The court noted that the Plaintiffs had sought emergency relief from state courts and acknowledged that no court had enjoined enforcement of the provisions at issue. The court also referenced prior judgments involving substantially similar claims.
Second, the Plaintiffs had not submitted the written certification required for an order without notice, describing their efforts to give notice and explaining why notice should not be required. Instead, the Plaintiffs stated that they intended to notify the defendants and asked for guidance about the proper service method.
Order
The court ordered the Plaintiffs to promptly serve the defendants with the complaint, the request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the supporting papers, and a copy of the order. The Plaintiffs must file proof of service no later than three business days after service. Once proof of service is filed, the defendants have fourteen days to file an opposition, and the Plaintiffs have seven days to file a reply.
The court emphasized that it had not ruled on the merits of the emergency request. It ordered notice and an opportunity for the defendants to respond rather than deciding whether the requested injunction should issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.