Skin Savvy Aesthetics LLC et al v. Panobit LLC 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
Skin Savvy Aesthetics LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Panobit LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-02332-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiffs Skin Savvy Aesthetics LLC and Crystal Clean Window Team LLC
(collectively, “Skin Savvy”) seek a temporary restraining order without notice against
defendant Panobit LLC. (Doc. 7 at 3.) Skin Savvy explains it is requesting “this TRO be
issued without notice, [but] it has nonetheless provided written notice of this motion to
Panobit, and will promptly serve this motion on Panobit after it is filed.” (Doc. 7 at 2.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) allows for a temporary restraining order without
notice only if “specific facts in an affidavit . . . clearly show that immediate and irreparable
injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition.”
Here, Skin Savvy submitted an affidavit stating “on April 1, 2026, Panobit disabled
Skin Savvy’s website, servers, and email accounts without notice.” (Doc. 7-2 at 11.) That
prevents Skin Savvy’s customers from reaching it. Skin Savvy also states that on April 8,
2026, Skin Savvy’s general manager and principal discovered that “a hacker—presumably
Panobit” gained access to personal email accounts, deleted messages, and shut him out of
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
his Apple account. (Doc. 7-2 at 13.) Skin Savvy believes “[e]very day in which [its] digital
infrastructure remains offline, [it] suffers additional and compounding harm to its
reputation, patient relationships, and prospective customer based.” (Doc. 7-2 at 13.) Skin
Savvy also believes its goodwill “is being actively destroyed.” (Doc. 7-2 at 13.)
Although Skin Savvy’s alleged harms are serious, they are not sufficient to merit
issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice and an opportunity to respond.
“[C]ircumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte order are extremely limited.” Reno
Air Racing Ass’n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). There are “very
few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO,” such as where notice is
impossible or “would render fruitless the further prosecution of the action.” Id. (simplified).
Neither situation exists here. In addition, Skin Savvy lost access to its “digital
infrastructure” on April 1 and filed this suit on April 6. The parties appear to have been
attempting to reach an “amicable resolution” between those dates, and Skin Savvy should
not be faulted for pursuing such efforts. (Doc. 7-2 at 46.) But after Skin Savvy filed suit, it
waited three days to seek an ex parte restraining order. That delay indicates the harm is not
so grave such that Panobit should be prevented from being heard.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice
(Doc. 7) is DENIED. The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order remains pending.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than April 13, 2026 at 9 a.m., defendants
shall file their opposition to the motion for temporary restraining order. Plaintiff shall file
their reply no later than April 14, 2026, at 9 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff shall provide notice of this order to
defendants as soon as practicable and file proof of that notice on the docket.
Dated this 9th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 2