Helcim USA Inc v. MJ's Discount Warehouse Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 HELCIM USA, INC., CASE NO. C24-1395JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. MJ’S DISCOUNT WAREHOUSE, INC., et al., Defendants.

Before the court is Plaintiff Helcim USA, Inc.’s (“Helcim”) emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (Mot. (Dkt. # 2).) Helcim asks this court to issue a TRO without notice to Defendants MJ’s Discount Warehouse, Inc.; MJ’s Wholesale Division; Southern Alliance Company, Inc. (“Southern Alliance”); Therapy Supply, Inc. a/k/a Therapy Supply, LLC a/k/a T&S Supply, Inc.; Jason Phillip Goins; Matthew Inman; Charles Clement; and Chris James (collectively, “Defendants”). (Id. at 13-14.) The court issued an order directing Helcim to show cause as to why the court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who are residents of Alabama. (9/4/24 Order (Dkt. # 7).)

2 Helcim timely responded to the court’s order. (Resp. (Dkt. # 8).) The court has reviewed Helcim’s submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law.

4 Having considered these materials, the court DENIES Helcim’s motion.

5 “Motions for temporary restraining orders without notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the adverse party are disfavored and will rarely be granted.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (setting forth requirements for issuing a TRO without notice).

9 To issue emergency injunctive relief, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties. See Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Viral DRM LLC v. Onyshchuk, No. 3:23-cv-04300-JSC, 2024 12 WL 189011, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2024) (denying motion for preliminary injunction because the plaintiff “failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the Court has personal jurisdiction over [the d]efendants”). Courts are “particularly reluctant” to issue TROs without notice when there are “concerns about whether [the court] has personal jurisdiction over” the defendants. E.g., Stone Metals Am., LLC v. Eubank, No. 3:20-CV-0253-K, 2020 WL 570906, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2020).

18 Although Helcim seeks a TRO and injunction as to all Defendants, the court is only satisfied that Helcim has met its burden of demonstrating that the court has personal jurisdiction over MJ’s Discount Warehouse, Inc., MJ’s Wholesale Division, Mr. Goins, and Mr. Inman. (See Resp. at 5 (naming the individuals and entities Mr. Goins listed as // “agents and related entities” to MJ’s Discount Warehouse, Inc.); see also 9/5/24 Brown Decl. (Dkt. # 9) ¶ 11 (same).1) 3 Because the court is not satisfied that it can issue the requested injunctive relief against all Defendants without notice, the court DENIES Helcim’s motion for an emergency TRO (Dkt. # 2) without prejudice to filing a renewed emergency motion for a TRO against: (1) all Defendants, with notice; or (2) MJ’s Discount Warehouse, Inc., MJ’s Wholesale Division, Mr. Goins, and Mr. Inman, without notice.

8 Dated this 6th day of September, 2024.

A JAMES L. ROBART 10 United States District Judge 20 1 Helcim asserts that the court should also exercise personal jurisdiction over Southern Alliance because the email addresses for Mr. Goins and Mr. Inman are “tied to” Southern Alliance. (See Resp. at 5; see also 9/3/24 Brown Aff. (Dkt. # 3) ¶ 11, Ex. B (displaying Mr. Goins’s email address as “[email protected]”).) The court declines to do so absent evidence that Southern Alliance was a party to Helcim’s terms and conditions, rather than simply the domain name for Mr. Goins’s and Mr. Inman’s email addresses.