BR IP Holder LLC et al v. Hira 31 Corporation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
BR IP Holder LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Hira 31 Corporation, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-01275-PHX-DJH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own review. Recently, Plaintiffs BR IP Holder
LLC and Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) counsel has filed
two Declarations of Service of Court Order. (Docs. 21–22). Upon review, the Court finds
Plaintiffs’ service of the Court’s Order Holding Defendants in Contempt (Doc. 20) is
insufficient under either Federal or Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding
this deficiency, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 23)
on March 20, 2026. The previous TRO expired on March 12, 2026. (See Doc. 13).
Plaintiffs filed their Verified Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order on February 23, 2026. (Docs. 1, 2). Plaintiffs effectuated service of the same on the
Injunction Defendants on February 27, 2026. (Doc. 18-1 at 5, 7, 9, 11 (certificates of
service)).1 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt
1 Plaintiffs also effectuated service of the TRO issued by the Court on February 27, 2026.
Plaintiffs did not separately file proof of service of the Complaint, Summons, TRO, or
Order on the TRO on Injunction Defendants, but instead attached those certificates of
service as exhibits to their Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt and Impose Sanctions.
(See Doc. 18-1 at 5, 7, 9, 11). To clarify the record, Plaintiffs are instructed to separately
file any affidavit of service in the future.
Case 2:26-cv-01275-DJH Document 24 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and Impose Sanctions (Doc. 18). The Court ordered Defendants to show cause why the
Motion should not be granted March 12, 2026 (Doc. 19) and instructed Plaintiffs to serve
a copy of the Order on Defendants. (Id.) Defendants did not respond to the Order to Show
Cause, and on March 13, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion and required Plaintiffs
to immediately serve Defendants with the Order and file an affidavit of service. (Doc. 20
at 2). Plaintiffs subsequently filed two declarations completed by their counsel notifying
the Court that service had been completed by mail. (See Docs. 21–22). The Court has
reviewed these declarations and finds this is not sufficient service under the law.
Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an individual (with
exceptions not relevant here) may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts
of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where
service is made; or
(2) doing any of the following:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the
individual personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place
of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides
there; or
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment
or by law to receive service of process.
Under Rule 4.1(d) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, an individual may be served
within Arizona using the same methods outlined in Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules.
Rule 5 of both the Federal and Arizona Rules accounts for service by mail of other papers
and pleadings, but this means of service is only appropriate after the appearance of a party.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(c); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2).2
The Court’s Order to serve Injunction Defendants did not authorize service by mail,
2 Ariz. R. of Civ. P. 4.2(c) also allows for service by mail when the serving party knows
the address of the person to be served is outside of Arizona but within the United States.
However, all of the Defendants appear to be Arizona residents, so this Rule does not apply
here.
Case 2:26-cv-01275-DJH Document 24 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
nor did Plaintiffs request to serve Defendants by mail.
Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that the reason service was completed by mail rather than
by personal service was “safety concerns raised by [Plaintiffs’] process server.” (Doc. 21
at ¶ 6). Plaintiffs’ counsel further states that the process server informed them that “Tariq’s
demeanor was aggressive and confrontational” during a prior personal service attempt.
(Id.) It is unclear what prior personal service attempt Plaintiff is referencing. Notably, the
certificates of service of the Complaint, Summons and TRO make no mention of any
threatening or aggressive behavior on the part of Defendant Tariq. (See Doc. 18-1 at 5, 7,
9, 11). Plaintiffs have failed to provide timely specifics as to any aggressive behavior that
would make personal service unsafe and failed to make any request for alternate service.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not, to date, demonstrated reason to
complete service by mail. If Plaintiffs determine that service by mail is necessary until
Defendants either appear or default in this case, then the appropriate motion with adequate
substantiation must be filed with the Court.
As to the Motion to Extend the TRO, the Court takes issue with Plaintiffs’ claim
that the Court “did not address Plaintiffs’ request to extend the TRO in the Contempt
Order.” (Doc. 23 at 2). Plaintiffs included their request to extend the TRO in a status
report attached as an exhibit to their Contempt Motion. (See Doc. 18-3 at 2). This is not
the proper place to request relief. Moreover, in their proposed order, there was no mention
of extending the TRO as would be required when a party seeks specific relief. See LRCiv.
7.1(b)(2). If Plaintiffs are seeking specific relief from the Court, it must be appropriately
requested in their motion. The Court will not sift through attachments to a motion to look
for further requested relief. That said, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown good
cause for extending the TRO. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that, in violation of Court
Orders, Injunction Defendants continue to operate ice creams shops at the Peoria and
Glendale Restaurants and utilize Baskin-Robbins trademarks and trade dress. (See Doc.
23-1 at 5–7, 9–10). However, while the Court agrees the TRO should be extended, no such
extension shall be issued until the above service issues are remedied.
Case 2:26-cv-01275-DJH Document 24 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, to confirm Defendants’ notice of the actions that have been taken
against them,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs must personally serve Injunction Defendants with
all filings in this matter since the Court’s February 26, 2026 Order granting Plaintiffs’
TRO, including but not limited to: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 18), the Court’s
Order to Show (Doc. 19); the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions
(Doc. 20) and Plaintiffs’ Declarations of Service (Docs. 21 & 22). Separate affidavits of
service shall be immediately filed with the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will reserve extending the TRO until
Plaintiffs have confirmed service upon Defendants.
Dated this 20th day of March, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-01275-DJH Document 24 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 4