The CAFFinator
@calfinator.bsky.social
Software Engineer. Cat person.
Usually a smart-ass
Usually a smart-ass
You would be correct!
October 3, 2025 at 9:32 PM
You would be correct!
Relevant excerpts from the dissent:
September 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
Relevant excerpts from the dissent:
Rule 65(c)
In simple terms, this means that any non-USG plaintiff would be required to pay a security deposit "that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained", otherwise the TRO / PI has no teeth on contempt.
In simple terms, this means that any non-USG plaintiff would be required to pay a security deposit "that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained", otherwise the TRO / PI has no teeth on contempt.
May 19, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Rule 65(c)
In simple terms, this means that any non-USG plaintiff would be required to pay a security deposit "that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained", otherwise the TRO / PI has no teeth on contempt.
In simple terms, this means that any non-USG plaintiff would be required to pay a security deposit "that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained", otherwise the TRO / PI has no teeth on contempt.
Slightly misleading to say "April 15th" and not also include they are required to have status updates *starting tomorrow*
April 11, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Slightly misleading to say "April 15th" and not also include they are required to have status updates *starting tomorrow*
