Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hitesh Shah's dispute with ConnectAndSell, Inc. (CAS) and other defendants began in Santa Clara County Superior Court, where he filed ex parte motions on August 23 and September 15, 2026. The first sought a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction. The second added requests for a protective order, a right to attach order, and a writ of attachment. The Superior Court denied both, finding an insufficient showing of likely irreparable harm and no great likelihood of success on the merits. It also found that Shah had not convincingly shown that CAS's financial condition was so precarious that it might be unable to satisfy any obligation to him.
Defendants removed the case to the Northern District of California on October 22, 2026. On October 26, Shah filed an ex parte motion for a TRO and order to show cause, combined with a right to attach order and writ of attachment (ECF No. 17). He separately sought an order directing deposit of funds into escrow (ECF No. 16). The court observed that the new motion sought substantially the same relief as the state-court motions.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Beth Labson Freeman noted that the TRO standard is substantially identical to the preliminary injunction standard. Under Winter, a movant must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without preliminary relief, a favorable balance of equities, and that an injunction serves the public interest. After reviewing the Superior Court's orders and the record herself, she denied the TRO for the same reasons the state court gave, finding no established likelihood of irreparable harm or of success on the merits. She also found no sufficient showing of irreparable harm before December 31, 2026, when the next payment to CAS is due. She therefore concluded there was no showing of immediate and irreparable harm before defendants could be heard, as Rule 65(b)(1)(A) requires.
The denial is without prejudice to consideration of a preliminary injunction motion, and the TRO motion is construed as a noticed preliminary injunction motion. Defendants must respond by November 10, 2026, and Shah may reply by November 17. One opposition and one reply must address all of Shah's motions, including ECF Nos. 16 and 17, within the standing order's page limits, with defendants sharing a combined 25 pages. An in-person hearing is set for December 3, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in San Jose, with no remote appearances. The order serves as service on parties that have appeared, and Shah must serve non-appearing defendants, by email if desired, by October 29, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Only the TRO request was denied; the right to attach, writ of attachment, and escrow deposit applications remain pending and will be decided after consolidated briefing.
- The court reached its own conclusion on the record while agreeing with the Superior Court's reasoning on irreparable harm and likelihood of success.
- Because the next payment to CAS is not due until December 31, 2026, the court saw no harm that could not await adversarial briefing.
- Shah receives a noticed preliminary injunction proceeding, but the court has not decided whether an injunction should issue.
- Deadlines are short, and the December 3 hearing must be attended in person.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a federal court may treat an ex parte TRO request after removal when a state court has already denied similar relief. The court did not simply defer to the state ruling. It reviewed the record itself and reached the same result. Its focus on the December 31, 2026 payment date shows that timing matters under Rule 65(b)(1)(A), because ex parte relief requires harm that will occur before the adverse party can be heard.
This is a preliminary procedural ruling by a single district judge and carries limited precedential weight. It does not decide the merits of Shah's claims or whether attachment or an escrow deposit is warranted. The court held only that Shah's showing was insufficient for emergency relief on this record, and the December 3 hearing will address the remaining questions.