Hurlock v. Labs
Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kelsier Labs, LLC, d/b/a Kelsier Ventures, Hayden Mark Davis, Gideon Davis, Charles Thomas Davis, Meteora, an unincorporated association, and Benjamin Chow
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-03891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Omar Hurlock v. Kelsier Labs, Judge Rochon denied plaintiffs’ motions seeking reconsideration of a preliminary-injunction denial and a new injunction.
Plaintiffs Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta, whose requests to reconsider the preliminary-injunction denial and obtain a new injunction were denied; the earlier denial remained in place for the defendants named in the case.
What happened
In Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta v. Kelsier Labs, LLC, the plaintiffs asked the court to revisit its earlier decision denying their request for a preliminary injunction. The court had found, among other things, that they had not sufficiently shown that they would suffer harm that could not be repaired later.
The plaintiffs filed one motion asking for additional or changed factual findings about irreparable harm and another seeking to revise the earlier decision and enter a narrower injunction. The court denied both motions because they repeated or repackaged arguments and evidence already considered, and did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error requiring reconsideration.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the motions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the listed motions on the docket. The earlier denial of the preliminary injunction therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- Hurlock v. Labs · No. 1:25-cv-03891
- Rochon
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
On August 19, 2025, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is a court order issued before final judgment that temporarily requires or prohibits specified conduct. The court previously found, among other things, that the plaintiffs had not made a sufficient showing of irreparable harm—harm that could not be adequately repaired later.
The plaintiffs then filed two motions. The first invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) and sought amended or additional findings limited to irreparable harm. The second was a combined motion under Rules 52(a)(2), 54(b), and 65 that asked the court to revise its earlier ruling, enter a narrowly tailored preservation injunction allowing inbound transfers while temporarily restraining outbound movements, and adopt the plaintiffs’ proposed supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Court’s reasoning
The court noted that Rule 52(b) permits a court to amend or add findings no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. No judgment had been entered in this case. The court nevertheless treated the Rule 52(b) motion, to the extent it sought reconsideration of the preliminary-injunction denial, as a reconsideration request and denied it.
The court explained that reconsideration is subject to a strict standard and is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting new theories, obtaining a rehearing, or taking a second opportunity to argue the case. The plaintiffs had repeated and repackaged their earlier arguments about the risk of cryptocurrency-asset dissipation. The court had already rejected those arguments at the preliminary-injunction hearing. The plaintiffs did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice requiring reconsideration.
The court also denied the combined motion. It found that the proposed supplemental factual findings relied on the same record the court had already reviewed, while the proposed legal conclusions relied on older decisions rather than any new controlling law. The motion therefore did not establish a basis for reconsideration or for entering a new injunction.
Disposition
The court denied both plaintiffs’ motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 150, 154, and 185. The opinion did not enter the requested preservation injunction or change the earlier denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.