You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
So the arbitrator had the power to issue the temporary restraining order without notice to Daniels because the confidential agreement alllowed it, according to the arbitrator http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/arbitration%20TRO.pdf …
But while the arbitration provision of the confidentiality agreement allows for temporary injunctive relief, it does not say anything express about getting such relief without giving Daniels noticepic.twitter.com/JdYUmRo6Yu
So either the arbitrator is relying upon another part of the contract or reading in the right in the event Daniels breached or was about to breach
In federal court one can get a TRO without notice only by offering a compelling reason, including that giving notice would give defendant the opportunity to do the very thing the TRO seeks to enjoin. Otherwise did process and federal rules require notice
You're missing two things here. First, the section immediately preceding the one in your screenshot allows for ex parte injunctive relief. Second, the ADRS rules, like Rule 65(a), allow for ex parte injunctive relief. (The JAMS rules do not--hence the choice of ADRS, I imagine.)pic.twitter.com/ydoDbklrqa
But later in Rule 24: "The emergency arbitrator shall notify the parties, no later than two (2) business days following the appointment, of the schedule and manner in which the emergency application will be considered." There is no exception for notice in this part.
I don't have the text in front of me anymore, but I can tell you from experience that that's not how the rule is applied. Ex parte TRO issued, then notice, then adversarial consideration of longer-term equitable relief.
It's arbitration. It has its own procedures. The problem is that early in the case there may not be an arbitrator even appointed yet. The arbitration service has to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the arbitrator has to make disclosures, etc. This takes time.
Two things: 1) The agreement calls for any arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties; hard to see how that happened with an ex parte approach. 2) Stormy's position is that the agreement was never finally agreed to. If no agreement at all, then no arbitration clause.
Above refers to DD as the claimant; TRO refers to EC as the claimant. Is that not an issue?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
