FW-CO, Inc. d/b/a Fortis v. Charles Schulz, David Schupmann, and Trident Solutions of Sugar Grove, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Fortis’s motion for civil contempt against David Schupmann based on alleged violations of a temporary restraining order. The court held that the TRO became operative only when the required bond was posted on May 6, 2025, and found that Fortis presented no evidence of violations during the TRO’s operative period. The court also denied Schupmann’s motion to strike Fortis’s untimely reply, finding the delay excusable neglect.

Holdings

1. When a court requires security under Rule 65(c), the temporary restraining order does not become operative until the required bond is posted, unless the court orders otherwise.
2. Fortis failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Schupmann violated the TRO during the period in which it was operative, so the motion for contempt was denied.
3. Fortis's eight-day-late reply was attributable to excusable neglect and would not be stricken.

Questions Presented

1. When did the temporary restraining order become operative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)?
2. Did Fortis prove by clear and convincing evidence that Schupmann violated the operative temporary restraining order?
3. Should Fortis's untimely reply be stricken, or did the filing result from excusable neglect?

Disposition

denied