Huynh v. Appradar
- Beth Freeman
- 5:26-cv-09461
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Freeman denied Kerina Huynh's emergency request to freeze AppRadar's cryptocurrency wallets because the application was missing required documents and lacked sufficient factual support.
Individuals who have filed or are considering filing emergency motions to freeze cryptocurrency assets in the Northern District of California, and litigants seeking temporary restraining orders without notice to the opposing party, who must be aware of strict local and federal rules requiring specific supporting documents and attorney certifications.
What happened
In Kerina Huynh v. Appradar (No. 26-cv-09461-BLF), plaintiff Kerina Huynh filed an emergency, no-notice application asking the court to immediately freeze cryptocurrency wallets held by defendant AppRadar, an entity doing business as AppRadar, to prevent it from moving or spending those assets while the lawsuit proceeds. Huynh's underlying complaint asserts claims for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
The court found two independent problems with the application. First, Huynh failed to include two documents required by the Northern District of California's local rules and federal procedural rules: a proposed temporary restraining order and a written declaration from counsel explaining why the opposing party was not given notice before the application was filed. Second, even setting those deficiencies aside, the court found the application too bare to support emergency relief on the merits — Huynh did not lay out the legal elements of any of her claims or show she could satisfy them, and her declaration left unclear how much money she actually deposited into the cryptocurrency wallet beyond an initial $50.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the application for a temporary restraining order. The denial is without prejudice, meaning Huynh may still file a proper motion for a preliminary injunction — a longer-notice form of the same relief — provided that motion complies with the district's local rules and is adequately supported.
The detailed version
- Huynh v. Appradar · No. 5:26-cv-09461
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 3, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Kerina Huynh filed suit against Appradar, an unknown entity doing business as AppRadar, asserting five causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) conversion, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) constructive trust, and (5) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The complaint appears to involve money deposited into a cryptocurrency wallet. Shortly after filing, Huynh filed an ex parte (without notice to the opposing party) application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) — an emergency court order — and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The requested relief would enjoin (prohibit) AppRadar from dissipating (spending or transferring away) assets held in certain cryptocurrency wallets.
Procedural Requirements
The court identified two categories of deficiency.
Local Rule Requirements
Civil Local Rule 65-1(a) of the Northern District of California requires that a TRO application be accompanied by five items: (1) a copy of the complaint, (2) a memorandum of points and authorities, (3) a proposed temporary restraining order and order to show cause, (4) other supporting documents, and (5) a declaration of counsel (a sworn written statement from the attorney) certifying that notice was given to the opposing party or explaining why it was not. Huynh failed to submit items 3 and 5.
Federal Rule Requirements
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) independently requires that when a TRO is sought without notifying the opposing party, the movant's attorney must certify in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. Huynh submitted no such certification.
Merits Analysis
The court also addressed the substantive adequacy of the application, finding it would likely be insufficient even if the procedural defects were overlooked.
To obtain a TRO or preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in the movant's favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding the legal standards for TROs and preliminary injunctions are substantially identical).
The court found Huynh's application deficient on at least the first two Winter factors: she did not recite the elements of any of her five claims or attempt to show those elements were met. Additionally, her declaration did not make clear how much money she actually deposited into the cryptocurrency wallet beyond an initial $50 referenced in the application, undermining the showing of likely irreparable harm.
Disposition
The court denied Huynh's ex parte application for a TRO. The denial is expressly without prejudice to a motion for a preliminary injunction, meaning Huynh is not barred from seeking similar emergency relief by properly noticed motion, provided any such motion complies with the district's Civil Local Rules and is adequately supported. The court also terminated ECF 6 (the docket entry for the TRO application).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.