-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-02
The magistrate judge recommended granting the plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-29
The court held that the city's New Year's Eve curfew, enacted to mitigate COVID-19 spread, was a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction that did not violate First Amendment rights, and thus denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-23
The court recommended granting the Receiver's fifth application for payment of fees for services rendered.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-31
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to meet the stringent requirements for ex parte relief and failed to address the security bond requirement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-20
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because it lacked required certifications, failed to demonstrate an emergency, and sought to alter the status quo rather than preserve it.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-03
The court denied plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order in both cases.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-03
Plaintiff Chloe Tsakiris Alston sued Stands4 LTD and others for stealing and unlawfully transferring her domain name www.calculator.com, alleging violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and other federal laws. The court denied Stands4's motion to dissolve the
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-30
The court denied the plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order because it failed to meet procedural requirements for notice and security.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-30
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because it failed to meet the procedural requirements for ex parte relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-30
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order because it failed to meet the procedural requirements for notice and security.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-30
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to meet the procedural requirements for ex parte relief, specifically regarding notice and security.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-27
The court held that the plaintiff's filing, construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order, failed to meet the necessary legal and procedural requirements and was therefore denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-15
The court denied the plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order because she failed to satisfy the prerequisites for such relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-14
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because he failed to comply with procedural requirements and did not establish a substantial threat of irreparable injury.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-30
The court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the defendant for trademark infringement and price gouging, deferring ruling on a preliminary injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-14
The court denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and her request to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-13
The court denied Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because Plaintiff failed to meet the stringent requirements for ex parte relief and lacked proper notice to the adverse party.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-03
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because it was procedurally insufficient and lacked a showing of irreparable harm. The court deferred ruling on the preliminary injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-03
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order due to procedural deficiencies and failure to meet the standard for ex parte relief, deferring ruling on the preliminary injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-02
The court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a temporary restraining order and that his claims were either moot or better addressed through a civil rights complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-16
Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order is denied because she has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her claims.
-
993 F. Supp. 2d 947·
S.D. Fla.·
2001-03-06
The court held that the case must be dismissed and the seizure order vacated due to the plaintiff's counsel's egregious violation of local rules requiring disclosure of related pending actions.
-
986 F.2d 1055·
7th Cir.·
1993-02-16
A newsstand is a structure, not speech, and thus not protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, a facial challenge to the ordinance is not permitted.