Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Request for 60 Days to Respond to TRO = Implied Consent to Extend TRO for the Full Period Requested and Until Court Rules

From City of N.Y. v. Venkataram, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109776 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2010):

On September 21, 2010, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant Venkataram (or anyone acting on his behalf, in concert with him, or in concert with anyone acting on his behalf) from: [specified conduct]. Defendant was temporarily restrained from the above conduct until the return date (October 5, 2010) on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and was ordered to file any answering papers by October 4, 2010. ***

In a September 24, 2010 letter to the Court, defendant Venkataram *** requested that his time to respond to the Order to Show Cause be extended by 60 days to December 5, 2010. ***

With regard to defendant's request for a 60 day extension to respond to the Order to Show Cause, we are mindful that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2) limits a temporary restraining order to 14 days "unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension." We view defendant's request for a 60-day extension to submit opposition papers as his implicit consent to the extension of this Court's September 21, 2010 Order temporarily restraining the conduct that plaintiff seeks to enjoin through a preliminary injunction. Thus, the restraining order is extended until this Court has the opportunity to rule on the City's request for a preliminary injunction after defendant has submitted opposition papers, which he must do no later than December 5, 2010.

Share this article:


Recent Posts