## Facts

- Smart Technologies ULC and Rapt Touch Ireland Ltd were parties to a commercial contract that required arbitration of disputes.
- Both sides agreed the arbitration clause applied and was enforceable for the dispute at issue.
- The contract incorporated arbitration rules allowing emergency interim relief from an emergency arbitrator.
- At the TRO hearing, Smart acknowledged an emergency arbitrator could be appointed within about a day and could set an expedited schedule within a few days, including remote proceedings.
- Smart nevertheless sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) in federal court, asserting court-ordered relief would be more “automatic” in effect than arbitral relief.
- The court denied the TRO and directed Smart to either voluntarily dismiss the action or explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court should grant a TRO under Rule 65 when the parties’ dispute is subject to a binding arbitration agreement.
2. Whether the availability of prompt emergency relief from an emergency arbitrator weighs against issuing a court-ordered TRO.
3. Whether a party’s preference for judicial enforcement, without showing arbitral inadequacy or unavailability, justifies bypassing the agreed arbitral process.

## Decision

- The court denied Smart’s application for a temporary restraining order.
- The court concluded the parties’ agreement and incorporated rules provided an adequate, rapid emergency mechanism through arbitration.
- The court indicated the federal action should be dismissed without prejudice absent a voluntary dismissal or a sufficient showing why the case should continue.

## Legal Principles

- A TRO is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy requiring a clear showing under Rule 65; it is not granted merely because a party prefers court-ordered relief.
- When parties have agreed to arbitrate, courts generally should respect that agreement and avoid interim judicial measures that would undercut the chosen forum.
- Where arbitration rules provide prompt emergency relief (including expedited appointment of an emergency arbitrator), the availability of that relief strongly supports denying a TRO absent a concrete showing that arbitral relief is unavailable or inadequate.

## Conclusion

The court refused to issue emergency injunctive relief because the parties’ binding arbitration agreement, together with fast emergency-arbitrator procedures, provided an appropriate avenue for interim protection, and Smart did not justify bypassing that agreed process.


Smart Techs. ULC v. Rapt Touch Ir. Ltd., 197 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2016)