Republican National Committee v. Canegata et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN CANEGATA, ROBERT SCHANFARBER, and VIRGIN ISLANDS REPUBLICAN PARTY a/k/a/ VIGOP PAC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:22-cv-0037 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Republican National Committee’s (“RNC”) motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 2.) Having duly considered the motion and memorandum of law in support thereof (ECF No. 3), the Court finds that counsel for the RNC has failed to “certify[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice [to the adverse party] and the reasons why [notice] should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_22-cv-00037/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_22-cv-00037-0.pdf
SHA-256 187662187322779b54b63b45fbd3f68253b8e82b90b8e8a94c9703e6a9985c81
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-187662187322
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN CANEGATA, ROBERT SCHANFARBER, and VIRGIN ISLANDS REPUBLICAN PARTY a/k/a/ VIGOP PAC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:22-cv-0037 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Republican National Committee’s (“RNC”) motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 2.) Having duly considered the motion and memorandum of law in support thereof (ECF No. 3), the Court finds that counsel for the RNC has failed to “certify[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice [to the adverse party] and the reasons why [notice] should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). While counsel for the RNC does mention in her certificate of service to the motion for temporary restraining order that she “gave notice to Defendants by emailing a copy of this Motion, Memorandum of Law in Support and Verified Complaint with their exhibits to Defendants’ counsel,” the Court finds this notice to be neither actual nor constructive where no counsel has entered an appearance for Defendants in this matter. See ECF No. 2, at 3. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the RNC’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED to the extent it requests a temporary restraining order; it is further ORDERED that a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction shall commence promptly at 10:00 A.M. on June 8, 2022, in St. Thomas Courtroom 1 before Chief Judge Robert A. Molloy; it is further ORDERED that the parties shall provide the Clerk of Court with a flash drive containing electronic copies of any exhibits in PDF format no later than June 1, 2022; and it is further Case: 3:22-cv-00037-RAM-RM Document #: 7 Filed: 05/23/22 Page 1 of 2 RNC v. Canegata et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-0037 Order ORDERED that the RNC shall file proof of actual notice or service no later than May 27, 2022. Failure to file such proof shall result in the Court removing this matter from its calendar. Dated: May 23, 2022 /s/ Robert A. Molloy ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge Case: 3:22-cv-00037-RAM-RM Document #: 7 Filed: 05/23/22 Page 2 of 2