Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
A toy manufacturer properly filed a diversity action against a former employee in federal court. The toy manufacturer alleged that the former employee violated an agreement not to compete by working for one of the toy manufacturer's direct competitors. Immediately upon filing its complaint, before the employee had been served, the toy manufacturer requested a temporary restraining order from the court.
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Here, by requesting a TRO before the employee received notice, the toy manufacturer still has the opportunity to demonstrate to the court that these requirements have been satisfied, including the extent of its irreparable injury/loss should the court wait until the employee is heard on the matter.
A is incorrect. Although generally, a TRO requires notice, notice may not be required if the above elements are met. Here, there are not enough facts to establish that the notice requirement was not met because the toy manufacturer still has the opportunity to show the court the extent of the irreparable injury.
B is incorrect. This is an incorrect application of the law. A preliminary injunction may not be issued without notice to the adverse party. Here, the facts indicate that notice has not been given to the former employee, so the appropriate remedy for the toy manufacturer is not a preliminary injunction.
C is incorrect. Whether this is a diversity action is not dispositive of whether the toy manufacturer should receive a TRO. Although TROs are available in diversity actions, the moving party (here, the toy manufacturer) must still make a sufficient showing to obtain the injunctive relief, as explained above.