Mims v. FedEx Corporation, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Satchidananda Mims’s renewed ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order concerning an ERISA-related hardship withdrawal request. The court held that Mims failed to certify that notice had been provided to the defendants and had not shown a likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits. The court also reminded Mims to file a statement by August 8, 2025, if he wished to proceed with the lawsuit.

Holdings

1. A statement that the movant will provide notice in the future does not satisfy Civil Local Rule 65-1(a)(5), which requires a declaration certifying that notice has been provided or explaining why notice could not be provided. Because Mims made neither showing, the renewed motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.
2. Mims failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or even serious questions going to the merits, and therefore was not entitled to a temporary restraining order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mims satisfied the notice-certification requirement for an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order.
2. Whether Mims demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits of his claim that Defendants violated ERISA-related regulations by refusing his hardship withdrawal request.
3. Whether Mims was entitled to a renewed temporary restraining order.

Disposition

other