1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARAN TANDON, Case No. 2:25-cv-02111-DJC-CSK PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 14 COINBASE, INC., et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 6) 16 17 Plaintiff Karan Tandon, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action against 18 Defendants Coinbase, Inc. (“Coinbase”), Google LLC (“Google”), and John Dee.1 (ECF 19 No. 1.) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “emergency motion for injunctive relief to 20 stay all collection activities pending resolution of litigation.” (ECF No. 6.) The Court 21 construes this as a motion for a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 65. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court submits the motion upon 23 the record and briefs on file 24 For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends DENYING Plaintiff’s motion. 25 Further, the Docket reflects that Plaintiff has paid the filing fee in this action. See Docket. 26 Therefore, the Court VACATES the findings and recommendations that recommend 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to

, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as the issue is moot. (ECF No. 2 5.) The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. (ECF 3 No. 2.) 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 A. Factual Allegations 6 Plaintiff brings this case against Defendants Coinbase, Google, and John Dee, an 7 unidentified individual. Compl. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Coinbase 8 violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”), Defendant Dee violated the 9 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), and Defendant Google enabled negligence 10 and ongoing victim endangerment.

. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dee 11 orchestrated a cyberattack on July 23, 2025 that was “enabled by the gross negligence” 12 of Defendants Google and Coinbase.

. Plaintiff received a phone call from a 13 number identified on his phone as a Google support line.

. Plaintiff answered the 14 call made by Defendant Dee, who falsely impersonated a Google employee.

. 15 Plaintiff alleges that he granted Defendant Dee access to his gmail account, which 16 compromised the account. See

. Using the gmail account as a “master key,” 17 Defendant Dee and his female accomplice executed unauthorized trades on Plaintiff’s 18 Coinbase account, depleting a $10,000 balance from Plaintiff’s Citibank account.

; 19

. Plaintiff alleges that immediately following these unauthorized transactions, 20 Defendant Dee claimed that Plaintiff’s funds were at risk and needed to be moved to a 21 secure hardware wallet for protection.

. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Dee deceived 22 him into revealing the security key for his Ledger hardware wallet and then executed a 23 second unauthorized transfer from the wallet, totaling approximately $15,054.30.

. 24 The total alleged loss is $25,054.30.

. Plaintiff also filed a police report in El 25 Dorado County.

. 26 In an addendum to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on July 30, 2025, Plaintiff states that 27 Citibank resolved the dispute in Plaintiff’s favor and reversed the $10,000 transfer to 28 Coinbase and credited the funds back to Plaintiff’s account. (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Plaintiff 1 alleges that despite this, Coinbase is continuing collection activities against Plaintiff.

2 In a second addendum to the Complaint filed on August 4, 2025, Plaintiff alleges that 3 Defendant Dee tried to contact Plaintiff’s wife by phone. (ECF No. 4 at 1.) 4 In Plaintiff’s emergency motion, Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendant 5 Coinbase and its agents from any collection or reporting activity concerning the negative 6 balance in Plaintiff’s account until the Court renders a final judgment. Pl. Mot. at 1 (ECF 7 No. 6). Plaintiff states that he filed formal police and federal complaints.

Plaintiff 8 states that any ongoing efforts by Defendant Coinbase to collect, report, or assign the 9 debt during the litigation would cause him irreparable harm. See

10 B. Procedural Posture 11 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint and a motion to proceed in forma 12 pauperis on July 29, 2025. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff filed two addendums to his 13 Complaint. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) On September 29, 2025, the Court recommended denying 14 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended that Plaintiff pay the 15 filing and administrative fees within thirty days from the date the findings and 16 recommendations were adopted. (ECF No. 5.) On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed the 17 pending motion titled “motion to stay collections” and also “emergency motion for 18 injunctive relief to stay all collection activities pending resolution of litigation.” (ECF No. 19 6.) The Docket reflects that on October 20, 2025 Plaintiff paid the filing fee. See Docket. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Relief is Procedurally Deficient 22 Plaintiff has filed a motion titled “motion to stay collections,” and “EMERGENCY 23 MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO STAY ALL COLLECTION ACTIVITIES 24 PENDING RESOLUTION OF LITIGATION” against Defendant Coinbase, Inc. and its 25 agents. (ECF No. 6.) The Court construes this as a motion for a temporary restraining 26 order under Rule 65. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) permits the court to issue a temporary 28 restraining order without notice to the adverse party only if (1) specific facts in the 1 affidavit or underlying pleading show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 2 damage will result before the opposing party may be heard; and (2) the movant certifies 3 in writing efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). This Court’s Local Rules also set forth certain procedural 5 mandates for a temporary restraining order to issue, including that the movant provide 6 the following documents: (1) a complaint; (2) a motion for temporary restraining order; 7 (3) a brief on the relevant legal issues; (4) an affidavit to support the existence of 8 irreparable harm; (5) an affidavit detailing the notice or efforts undertaken or showing 9 good cause why notice should not be given; (6) a proposed temporary restraining order 10 and provision for bond; (7) a proposed order with blank for fixing time and date for a 11 hearing; and (8) where a temporary restraining order is requested ex parte, the proposed 12 order should also notify the affected parties of the right to apply to the Court for 13 modification or dissolution on two (2) days’ notice or such shorter notice as the Court 14 may allow. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(c). 15 Plaintiff’s temporary restraining order motion is procedurally deficient because 16 Plaintiff has not complied with the requirement to provide notice to all affected parties. 17 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(a) & 231(c)(5). Plaintiff’s entire 18 motion is one page long. Plaintiff has not provided any details regarding whether he has 19 provided actual notice, whether he tried to use reasonable efforts, or whether he should 20 not be required to provide notice. There is no reference in Plaintiff’s motion or in the 21 docket regarding any such efforts. See Pl. Mot.; Docket. Further, neither Defendant has 22 appeared in this case and there is no evidence that Plaintiff served this motion on 23 Defendant Coinbase. 24 Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 231(c)(5) because 25 he did not make efforts to provide notice of his motion to Defendant Coinbase, and did 26 not provide reasons why notice on Defendant Coinbase should not be required. See Pl. 27 Mot. Courts regularly deny temporary restraining orders for failing to comply with the 28 stringent requirements of Rule 65(b)(1), including those sought by pro se plaintiffs. See 1 Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord,

(9th Cir. 2006) (“courts 2 have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte temporary 3 restraining order”); Abdel-Malak v. Doe,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 4 2020) (denying temporary restraining order sought by pro se plaintiff for failure to satisfy 5 Rule 65(b)’s “strict requirements”); Seymour v. U.S. Dep’t of Def.,

, at 6 *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010) (same); Roman v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc.,

, 7 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 31, 2010) (same). In addition, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 8 Local Rules’ requirements for temporary restraining orders is sufficient justification to 9 deny the motion.2 See Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy,

, 1131 10 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is 11 well within a district court’s discretion.”). 12 The Court therefore recommends denial of Plaintiff’s motion for emergency relief 13 based on these procedural deficiencies. 14 III. FILING FEE 15 On September 29, 2025, the Court issued findings and recommendations that 16 recommended Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (ECF No. 5.) 17 The Court recommended that Plaintiff pay the filing and administrative fees within thirty 18 days from the date the findings and recommendations were adopted.

The Docket 19 reflects that on October 20, 2025, Plaintiff paid the required fees. See Docket. 20 Accordingly, the findings and recommendations issued on September 29, 2025 (ECF 21 No. 5) are VACATED, and Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 22 DENIED as moot. 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 Based upon the findings above, it is ORDERED that: 25 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 29, 2025 (ECF 26 No. 5) are VACATED; and 27 2 In addition, Plaintiff did not submit the proposed orders required by Local Rule 28 231(c)(6)-(8) or the TRO Checklist. 1 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as 2 moot. 3 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for emergency relief (ECF 4 | No. 6) be DENIED. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 6 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within 7 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 8 || written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 9 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 10 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 11 || days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 12 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

, 13 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 || Dated: November 5,

S \U 16 CHI SOO KIM 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 | 5, tand.2111.25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28