Tim Flaherty, et al. v. Brock Pierce, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent Brock Pierce and Scott Walker from removing, controlling, transferring, or encumbering cryptocurrency and blockchain-related assets associated with an unidentified DNA entity. The court also grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to exceed the reply-page limit and grants Pierce’s motion to file a supplemental declaration. The TRO is denied because the filings do not clearly identify which DNA entity is implicated, which entity possesses the assets, or what conduct and parties the proposed order would restrain.

Holdings

1. A request for injunctive relief must identify with sufficient specificity the entities to be restrained, the assets at issue, and the conduct to be restrained or required. Plaintiffs' failure to identify which DNA entity was implicated and which entity possessed the assets made the requested relief impermissibly unclear.
2. Even assuming plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for eligibility for a TRO, the court retained equitable discretion to deny the requested relief and exercised that discretion because the identity of the relevant DNA entity and the scope of the restraint were unclear.
3. A notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismisses an action, not a single party. Notices purporting to dismiss individual plaintiffs were therefore construed as motions under Rule 21 to drop a party, and the court deferred ruling on them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
2. Whether the requested injunctive relief was sufficiently specific as to the conduct to be restrained and the entities subject to restraint.
3. Whether plaintiffs' requests for a preliminary-injunction hearing and appointment of a receiver should be granted.
4. Whether the notices purporting to dismiss individual plaintiffs should be construed as motions under Rule 21 rather than notices of dismissal under Rule 41.

Disposition

other