ORDER
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before the Court is the Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (ECF No. 2) filed by Plaintiff Hire A Helper LLC ("Plaintiff').
I. Allegations of the Complaint (ECF No. 1)
On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint (ECF No. I). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Move Lift, LLC and Simple Moving Labor, LLC ("Defendants") have published material on Defendants' website that infringes on Plaintiff's copyright. Id. at ¶ 23-24. Plaintiff alleges that it has not "`authorized [Defendants] to reproduce or copy anything including without limitation [Plaintiff's] copyrighted text and layout in [Defendants'] website." Id. at ¶ 25 .
Plaintiff alleges that its "executives began pursuing Budget Truck Rentals, LLC (`Budget') for [Plaintiff] to enter into a contract in which Budget would refer its customers to [Plaintiffs] online marketplace. The Potential Budget Contract is projected to generate many millions of dollars of additional revenue and profits for [Plaintiff]." Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff alleges that "[o]n or about January 11, 2017, after * nearly seven years attempting to secure the Potential Budget Contract, on January 11, 2017, Budget's representative . . . called [Plaintiffs] Head of Sales & Marketing, Ryan Charles, requesting that he travel to Budget's office in New Jersey to present [Plaintiffs] bid for the Potential Budget Contract. [Plaintiffs] bid was presented for the Potential Budget Contract in person to Budget in Parsippany, New Jersey on March 6, 2017." Id. at ¶ 17. "On information and belief, [Defendant] MoveLift met with Budget between March 10, 2017, and April 1,2017, to present MoveLift's bid for the Potential Budget Contract based in part on MoveLift's website that included material wrongfully copied from and infringing upon [Plaintiffs] copyright in [Plaintiffs] website." Id. at 18. Plaintiff alleges that "Budget is currently considering either [Plaintiffs] bid or MoveLift's bid for the Potential Budget Contract." Id. at ¶ 19.
Plaintiff alleges that "[f]urther irreparable harm to [Plaintiff] is imminent as a result of [Defendants'] conduct, and [Plaintiff] is without an adequate remedy at law. [Plaintiff] is entitled to emergency, temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining [Defendants], their officers, directors, agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in further such acts of copyright infringement." Id. at ¶ 26. Plaintiff includes two claims for relief in the Complaint: (1) copyright infringement; and (2) unfair competition. Id. at ¶¶ 20-34. Plaintiffs prayer for relief includes a request for a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants, "actual damages plus [Defendants'] profits gained as a consequence of [Defendants'] infringement of [Plaintiffs] copyright in an amount to be prove at trial [,]" statutory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts owed, and for fees. Id. at 7.
II. Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (ECF No. 2)
Concurrent with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff contends that
Defendants are misusing material copied from [Plaintiff] within the last six weeks to unfairly interfere and compete with [Plaintiff] for a contract with Budget that [Plaintiff] has been pursuing for seven years. Budget's award of the contract is now under active consideration. An emergency temporary restraining order is urgently needed to prevent the irreparable harm that result if Budget were to award the contract to Defendants based on Defendants' copyright infringements of [Plaintiffs] material developed over 11 years at a cost ofhundreds of thousands of dollars.
(ECF No. 2 at 2). Plaintiff requests that the Court enter "a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from publishing in any way the content contained in HireAHelper's website at www.hireahelper.com and barring [Defendants] from negotiating for or entering into any contracts with Budget." (ECF No. 2-1 at 3). Plaintiff contends that
The Potential Budget Contract would Represent a substantial part of [Plaintiff's] revenue and would enable [Plaintiff] to obtain other new accounts and business relationships. If [Defendants] are permitted to market themselves with their current websites to enter into contracts it would not have obtained otherwise by relying upon the major investment made by [Plaintiff], [Plaintiff] will never know of the accounts and business relationships that it has lost due to [Defendants'] copyright infringement. Proof of the amount of the loss would be extraordinarily difficult or impossible. Such loss cannot be compensated by money damages and is irreparable in nature.
Id. at 5.
III. Analysis
A. Temporary Restraining Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) states that
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). The Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he stringent restrictions imposed by . . . Rule 65 on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974). "Consistent with this overriding concern, courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO." Reno Air Racing Ass'n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006).
In this case, Plaintiff has attached a declaration to its Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue stating that Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to Defendants containing a copy of the Application. (ECF No. 2-3). The: Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the notice requirement of Rule 65(b)(1)(B).
However, Plaintiff has not set forth "specific facts" that "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to [Plaintiff] before [Defendants] can be heard in opposition[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff has failed to set forth specificAfacts as to why it is necessary for this Court to issue the requested injunctive relief "before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted [to] both sides of [this] dispute." Granny Goose, 415 U.S. at 439. See also Zakar v. CHL Mortg. Pass Through Trust, No. 11CV457 JLS (WVG), 2011 WL 915293, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8,2011) (Sammartino, J.) ("Plaintiffs failed to set forth specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly showing that immediate and irreparable loss would result before the Defendants could be heard in opposition."). Because Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirement set forth in Rule 65(b)(1)(A), Plaintiffs application for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.
B. Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff's application also includes a request for a preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 2-1 at 3. Rule 65(a) states that "The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1-2). Accordingly, for Plaintiff to have its request for a preliminary injunction set for a hearing before this Court, Plaintiff must serve Defendants with all documents filed in this action to date, including the Complaint (ECF No. 1), the Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (ECF No. 2), and this Order. Plaintiff must file proof of service in the record of this case no later than Monday, April 10, 2017.
If Plaintiff timely files proof of service in the record of this case, Plaintiffs request for a Preliminary Injunction will be set for a hearing on Monday, April 24, 2017, at 4:00 PM in Courtroom 14B. Any opposition by Defendants must be filed in the record of this case no later than Monday, April 17, 2017. Any reply by Plaintiff must be filed in the record of this case no later than Wednesday, April 19, 2017.
