Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
1,407 characters extracted
—
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
TOASTEDPUERI
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-870
JUDGE. HON. AlexJCabot
Plaintiff
v.
JOAISHUMAN
Defendant
MOTION IN OPPOSITION OF AN EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Supreme Court has previously held that where a provision of the Ridgeway Rules of
Civil Procedure parallels that of a provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Supreme
Court of the United States' interpretation of that provision should apply. State v. Lx1nas, 1 Rid.
___ (2022) (slip op. at 14) (importing interpretation of Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for interpretation of Rule 47(d) of our state's civil procedure). Because Rule 47(b) is
copied verbatim from Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), the Supreme Court's interpretation should be taken:
here, "[t]he notice required by Rule 65 (a) before a preliminary injunction can issue implies a
hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose the application and to
prepare for such opposition." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No.
70, 415 U.S. 423, 432 n. 7 (1974). This Court has not given us the opportunity to prepare for and
argue such a hearing, so the injunction should not be issued as of now.
CONCLUSION
This court should deny the Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency preliminary injunction
/s/ totoro987123
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
Dated: MM/DD/YYYY
Document record
File size
646.5 KB
Uploaded
Jan 16, 2023 12:00 PM
Filed
Jan 16, 2023 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
ciifford2
Notes
TOASTEDPUERI v. JOAISHUMAN, response to preliminary injunction.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/cVPhLeBu)
