McDonald's Corporation v. Circa Hospitality Group II LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA || MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00384-JCM-EJY Plaintiff, 2 vs. ORDER || CIRCA HOSPITALITY GROUP II LLC D/B/A || THED LAS VEGAS, 15 Defendant.

16 Before the court is Plaintiff McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonald’s”) Application For A || Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 11. The application is supported by a memorandum of || points and authorities, the declarations of Yanxiong Li, Esq. and Jackie Bunting, McDonald’s || representative, and various exhibits attached to McDonald’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8.

20 The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to “preserv[e] the status quo and prevent[] || irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose || Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39, 94 S. Ct. 1113, 39 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1974); E. Bay || Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 909 F.3d 1219, 1230 (9th Cir. 2018). The standard for granting a || TRO is “substantially identical” to the standard for granting a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg || Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

26 To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four elements: “(1) a || likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm in the || absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the || public interest favors an injunction.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 2 || 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Mar. 11, 2014) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. || Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).

4 The Court finds that, based on the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint and || Application for Temporary Restraining Order, including the Declaration of Jackie Bunting, that ||(1) McDonald’s is likely to succeed on the merits or, at a minimum, has raised “serious questions || going to the merits”; (2) McDonald’s will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction does not issue || due to the loss of the Property, a unique asset, and due to shutdown of its business operations that || it has maintained for nearly three decades; (3) the balance of equities is in favor of McDonald’s || because the TRO will not harm Defendant’s interests; and (4) there is a strong public interest in || preserving the status quo and promoting freedom of contract. Thus, Plaintiff's motion satisfies || the requirements of a TRO.

13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) provides that “The court may issue a...temporary || restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount the court considers proper to pay 15 ||the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or 16 restrained.” A district court retains discretion “as to the amount of security required, if any.” || Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations || omitted) (emphasis in original). The court may dispense with the filing of a bond if “there is no 19 realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining his or her conduct.” Jorgensen v. || Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Court finds that a de minimis bond || of $500 shall be required to be posted.

22 Based upon the Complaint, the Motion and all exhibits attached thereto, the discussion || above, and for good cause appearing, the Court orders as follows: 24 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is 25 ||GRANTED. The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), as detailed below, shall be effective upo || posting of the $500 bond on or before March 21, 2023, and shall remain in force until 27 ‘||a Preliminary Injunction Hearing is held.

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Circa, and its successors, assigns and ||agents are enjoined from undertaking any act that would interfere with the Lease, prevent ||McDonald’s from operating its quick service restaurant within The D Las Vegas, real property ||located of 301 Fremont Street, Las Vegas Nevada 89101, or otherwise affect the continuity ||of McDonald’s business operations within the restaurant during the pendency of this action.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Circa shall file any response to □□□□□□□□□□□ || Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before Monday, March 27, 2023.

8 Plaintiffs shall then have up to Thursday March 30, 2023, at 12:00 noon to reply || to Defendant’s response.

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a preliminary injunction hearing shall be scheduled on || March 31, 2023, at 11:00am in Courtroom 6A.

14 , 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 patep: Man“ tins ©. Malan 20 JAMES€.MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE