## Facts

- Gil Pharmaceutical Corp. (Gil) sued Advanced Generic Corp. and related parties (collectively, Generic) in the Court of First Instance of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, alleging violations of Puerto Rico trademark law based on Generic’s sale of pharmaceutical products under marks claimed to be confusingly similar to Gil’s.
- Gil filed the action on December 15, 2009 and sought emergency injunctive relief under Puerto Rico trademark law.
- On January 27, 2010, after an ex parte proceeding, the Puerto Rico court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring Generic from using certain names and trademarks, including “Biogil” and “Biotect Plus.”
- The Puerto Rico court set a hearing for seven days later for Generic to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
- Before that scheduled hearing occurred, Generic removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on February 2, 2010.
- In federal court, Generic moved to dissolve the state-court TRO. The district court ordered Gil to show cause by the March 1, 2010 motion-hearing date why the TRO should not be dissolved and/or to seek a preliminary injunction.
- Gil did not timely show good cause to continue the TRO and did not timely apply for a preliminary injunction. The district court dissolved the ex parte TRO and referred the preliminary-injunction request to a magistrate judge for scheduling and hearing.
- On March 5, 2010, Gil filed a new motion in federal court requesting another TRO and also requesting a preliminary injunction. The magistrate judge scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing to begin on April 6, 2010.

## Issues

1. After removal, should the federal court grant Gil a new TRO where Gil failed to timely justify continuing emergency relief or timely pursue a preliminary injunction?
2. Does a plaintiff’s delay and failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines weigh against a finding of immediate, irreparable harm needed for TRO relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65?
3. Is a TRO warranted when a noticed preliminary-injunction hearing is already scheduled, giving both sides an opportunity to be heard?

## Decision

- The court denied Gil’s renewed application for a TRO.
- The court left Gil to pursue any injunctive remedy at the scheduled preliminary-injunction hearing, where both parties would have notice and an opportunity to be heard.

## Legal Principles

- After a case is removed to federal court, federal procedural rules govern further proceedings, including requests for temporary restraining orders.
- A TRO is an extraordinary, short-term remedy governed by Rule 65; it requires a prompt, specific showing that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard.
- A party seeking emergency relief must act promptly and comply with court orders and deadlines; delay and missed deadlines can defeat the claim that relief is urgently needed.
- When a preliminary-injunction hearing is set to occur on notice in the near term, a court may deny TRO relief if the movant does not show harm that cannot wait for that hearing.

## Conclusion

The district court denied Gil’s request for a new temporary restraining order because, after removal, Rule 65 governed and Gil’s delay and missed deadlines cut against emergency relief; the court directed Gil to seek any injunctive remedy at the upcoming preliminary-injunction hearing on notice.


Gil Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Advanced Generic Corp., 692 F. Supp. 2d 212 (2010)