2 total
Plaintiff prohibited from bringing interlocutory injunction motion until outstanding costs orders are satisfied.
The court considered whether the plaintiff, Gaurav Tewari, should be permitted to bring a motion for an interlocutory injunction under Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against multiple defendants, given his outstanding costs orders from previous litigation.
The court found that it would be unfair to allow further motions until the costs orders were satisfied, despite the plaintiff's claims of significant assets.
The motion was not permitted to proceed at this time.
The court ordered a plaintiff's summons motion and the defendants' jurisdiction motion to be heard concurrently to promote judicial economy.
This endorsement from a case conference addresses the procedural management of two related actions (Desiccare and Cargill) involving the same self-represented plaintiff.
The primary issue was whether the plaintiff's summons motion to examine non-parties and the defendants' jurisdiction motion in the Cargill action should be heard separately or together.
Citing judicial economy and the plaintiff's outstanding costs orders from previous unsuccessful appeals, the court ordered that both motions be heard concurrently by the same judge.
The decision also touched upon the principle of not ordering examinations before jurisdiction is decided.
