Under Rule 65, which statement about temporary restraining orders (TROs) is correct?

Under Rule 65, which statement about temporary restraining orders (TROs) is correct?

• A. TRO requires notice to adverse party
• B. TRO may be granted without notice if there is risk of irreparable injury and notice efforts certified
• C. TRO may be granted only after a full evidentiary hearing
• D. TRO is never allowed in civil cases

Answer: (B)

Temporary restraining orders under Rule 65 are meant to act quickly to stop ongoing or imminent harm when waiting for a full hearing would cause irreparable damage. They can be issued without notifying the adverse party in true emergencies. The key requirement is that there is an immediate risk of irreparable injury and that the movant’s counsel certifies in writing the efforts made to give notice and why notice should not be required. This allows the court to intervene promptly while still protecting the opposing party's opportunity to be heard at a later hearing on a preliminary injunction. So the statement is correct because it captures both the possibility of issuing a TRO without notice in urgent situations and the required written certification of notice efforts. The other options are not accurate: TROs do not always require notice; they may be granted without notice in emergencies. A TRO can be issued without a full evidentiary hearing, and TROs are available in civil cases.

Temporary restraining orders under Rule 65 are meant to act quickly to stop ongoing or imminent harm when waiting for a full hearing would cause irreparable damage. They can be issued without notifying the adverse party in true emergencies. The key requirement is that there is an immediate risk of irreparable injury and that the movant’s counsel certifies in writing the efforts made to give notice and why notice should not be required. This allows the court to intervene promptly while still protecting the opposing party's opportunity to be heard at a later hearing on a preliminary injunction.

So the statement is correct because it captures both the possibility of issuing a TRO without notice in urgent situations and the required written certification of notice efforts. The other options are not accurate: TROs do not always require notice; they may be granted without notice in emergencies. A TRO can be issued without a full evidentiary hearing, and TROs are available in civil cases.