ORDER DENYING TRO AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Plaintiff William Martz has failed to meet his burden to show any impending event that warrants issuance of a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). Although there may be questions regarding the admissibility of the declaration of defendant Sky Muncaster's Scottish counsel, David Leishman, (Dkt. 16-1), see Galindo v. City of Orange, No. SACV 14-179 AG (RNBx), 2015 WL 13376564, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1746), Martz has not contradicted Leishman's assertion that Martz need only file an answer in the Scottish Action by May 27, 2019, and that there is no risk of the property being sold for several months. Martz's request for a TRO is denied and the matter will be set for a hearing regarding whether a preliminary injunction should issue for June 27, 2019. If Martz wishes to file a supplemental brief explaining why a preliminary injunction is warranted, he may file a brief of no more than 20 pages by May 15, 2019. Muncaster may file an opposition brief of no more than 20 pages by May 29, 2019. Martz may file an optional reply brief of no more than 15 pages by June 5, 2019.

In her Opposition to Martz's TRO motion, Muncaster represents she intends to file a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and forum non conveniens. Should she choose to do so, she must file her opening brief no later than May 15, 2019. Muncaster may file his opposition to the motion by May 29, 2019. Muncaster may file her reply by June 5, 2019. The page limits shall comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 25 pages for the opening brief, 25 pages for the opposition brief, and 15 pages for the reply brief. Should Muncaster file the motion to dismiss, she is to notice it for a hearing on June 27, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.