Leonard Loh v. Lanston Loh, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Leonard Loh’s ex parte motions for a temporary restraining order and related relief seeking to freeze and preserve cryptocurrency assets allegedly converted by the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), including the requirements for proceeding without notice, and directed him to serve the defendants or file a status report by December 24, 2025.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was not entitled to an ex parte temporary restraining order because he failed to establish the circumstances required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) for relief without notice.
2. The alleged risk that defendants might further move or dissipate cryptocurrency did not make notice impossible and did not justify ex parte relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)'s requirements for obtaining an ex parte temporary restraining order without notice.
2. Whether the alleged risk that defendants might move or dissipate cryptocurrency assets made notice impossible or otherwise justified ex parte relief.

Disposition

other