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
On March 20, 2026, the Court instructed Plaintiffs BR IP Holder LLC and Baskin-
Robbins Franchising LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to personally serve Defendants Hira
Corporation, Sweet Hira Group Inc., Mohammed Tariq, and Twisted Gelato LLC
(collectively, “Injunction Defendants”) with all filings in this matter since the Court’s
February 26, 2026, Order granting Plaintiffs’ Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”),
including but not limited to: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 18), the Court’s Order
to Show Cause (Doc. 19); the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions
(Doc. 20), and Plaintiffs’ Declarations of Service (Docs. 21 & 22) (Doc. 24). The Court
directed Plaintiffs to immediately file affidavits of service as to these filings. (Doc. 24).
The Court also stated that it would reserve ruling on Plaintiffs’ request to extend the TRO
until it was assured Injunction Defendants were properly on notice of the filings. (Id.)
On March 27, 2026, Plaintiffs filed Proofs of Service, demonstrating they had
effectuated personal service on Injunction Defendants on March 24 or 25, 2026. (See Docs.
26–30).
Case 2:26-cv-01275-DJH Document 31 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
“Before it can impose sanctions, [] the Court is required to provide notice to Plaintiff
of exactly which conduct is sanctionable and give him an opportunity to show cause as to
why sanctions should not be imposed.” Johnson v. Overlook at Blue Ravine, LLC, 2012
WL 2993890, *8 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citing In re DeVille, 361 F.3d 539, 549 (9th Cir. 2004)).
“A district court has no ‘power to impose monetary sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
11…without affording…procedural due process’ which at a minimum requires notice and
an opportunity to show cause why sanctions are unwarranted.” Motown Rec. Corp. v.
Wilson, 849 F.2d 1476, *2 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
Based on the current record before it, which reflects service dates of March 24 and
25, for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 18), the Court’s Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 19); the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 20), and
Plaintiffs’ Declarations of Service (Docs. 21 & 22), the Court finds that Injunction
Defendants were not provided the required notice and opportunity to be heard before the
Court imposed sanctions for noncompliance with the TRO on March 13, 2026. Although
such notice has now been provided, to comply with the requirements of due process, the
Court will vacate its March 13, 2026, Order imposing sanctions. It so follows that
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 25) filed pursuant to that Order will also be
denied.
As it indicated in its March 20 Order, however, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have
shown good cause to extend the Court’s February 26, 2026, TRO.1 Plaintiffs provided
evidence showing that despite their contractual obligations and the Court’s February 27,
2026 TRO, Injunction Defendants continue to operate ice creams shops at the Peoria and
Glendale locations and utilize Plaintiffs’ trademarks and trade dress. (See Doc. 23-1 at 5–
7, 9–10). Therefore, an extension of the TRO is warranted under these circumstances.
Accordingly,
1 Unlike 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), Plaintiffs properly effectuated service of the
Complaint, Summons, Motion for TRO with Notice, and TRO upon Injunction Defendants.
(See Doc. 18-1 at 5, 7, 9, and 11).
Case 2:26-cv-01275-DJH Document 31 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

- 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
IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s March 13, 2026, Order (Doc. 20) is VACATED
and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 25) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to reinstate Plaintiffs’
Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt and Impose Sanctions (Doc. 18) as a pending
motion. Upon being personally served with this Order, Injunction Defendants shall
have seven (7) days file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Hold Defendants in
Contempt and Impose Sanctions (Doc. 18). Plaintiffs shall have three (3) days thereafter
to file any reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. The Court’s February 26, 2026, TRO
(Doc. 13) shall remain in effect until April 13, 2026, after which time the TRO will expire
absent a request by Plaintiff to convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall serve this Order on Injunction
Defendants immediately and file an affidavit of service with the Court.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-01275-DJH Document 31 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3