Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08163/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Don Medicine Wolf,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ambaya Pilar Martin, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-8163 PCT DGC

ORDER

On August 31, 2010, Plaintiff Don Medicine Wolf filed a complaint against Defendant

Ambaya Pilar Martin and others in which he alleges that Defendants violated the Lanham

Act, breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, and committed various other state law torts.

Doc. 1 at 1-18. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have effectively stolen his life’s work,

which consists of medicines and mineral supplements that “improve and enhance a person’s

health and wellbeing[.]” Doc. 4 at 2. He contends that Defendants are illegally using his

trade secrets, and has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Defendants’

infringing activities. Doc. 3. He also requests an expedited hearing on his request for a

temporary restraining order. Id.

Plaintiff filed his complaint and request for a temporary restraining order on

August 31, 2010. See Docs. 1, 3. It appears that no Defendant has yet received notice of

Plaintiff’s complaint, his motion for a temporary restraining order, or his request for

expedited consideration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 does not allow a court to issue

a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party unless the party seeking the

order makes the showing required by Rule 65(b)(1). Plaintiff has not shown that efforts have

been made to give notice to Defendants, has not requested issuance of a temporary

Case 3:10-cv-08163-DGC Document 10 Filed 09/02/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

restraining order without notice, and, even if he had, has not shown cause for the Court to

issue such an order without notice under Rule 65(b)(1). The Court will deny the request for

expedited consideration of the temporary restraining order because Defendants must receive

notice of the complaint and motion.

IT IS ORDERED that the Court will set a hearing on September 23, 2010 at

3:00 p.m. for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. At least

seven days before the date of the hearing, Plaintiff must have served or attempted to serve

every Defendant in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service

to each Defendant must include a copy of this order.

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08163-DGC Document 10 Filed 09/02/10 Page 2 of 2