Case 2:17-cv-00138-DB Document 59 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
PURPLE INNOVATIONS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
HONEST REVIEWS, LLC, a Florida
Corporation, RYAN MONAHAN, an
individual, and GHOSTBED, INC., a
Delaware corporation,

Case No. 2:17-cv-138-DB
District Judge Dee Benson

Defendants.

Before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should
not be Held in Contempt (Dkt. No. 17), Defendants Ryan Monahan and Honest Reviews, LLC’s
Emergency Motion to Stay and Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order (Amended) (Dkt. No.
28), Defendant Ghostbed Inc.’s Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No.
36), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery (Dkt. No. 39), Defendants
Ryan Monahan and Honest Reviews, LLC’s request for sanctions (fees) against Plaintiff, raised
in their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No.45), and Plaintiff’s
oral Motion to Convert the Temporary Restraining Order into a Preliminary Injunction. The
court held a hearing on the Motions on March 14, 2017. Plaintiff was represented by James E.
Magleby, Christine T. Greenwood, and Adam Alba. Defendants Honest Reviews, LLC and Ryan
Monahan were represented by Marc J. Randazza, D. Gill Sperlein, and W. Andrew McCullough.
Defendant Ghostbed, Inc. was represented by Eleanor M. Yost, Phillip S. Ferguson, and Bryson
R. Brown. At the hearing, the court heard argument with respect to the above motions. At the

 Case 2:17-cv-00138-DB Document 59 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 2

conclusion of the hearing, the court took the motions under advisement. Now being fully
advised, the court issues the following order.
For the reasons set forth in the parties’ briefing and at oral argument, the court finds a
lack of “clear and unequivocal” support for a right to relief that is necessary for the entry of the
“extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction. Greater Yellowstone Coal v. Flowers, 321
F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir. 2003). As such, the court hereby grants Defendants’ motions to
dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 36), and denies Plaintiff’s oral Motion to
convert the Temporary Restraining Order into a Preliminary Injunction. The court similarly
denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery (Dkt. No. 39) and Motion
for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should not be Held in Contempt (Dkt. No. 17). The
court further denies Defendants’ request for sanctions, finding that such sanctions are not
warranted here.
For the foregoing reasons, and for those expressed in the parties’ briefing and oral
arguments, Docket Numbers 17 and 39, as well as Plaintiff’s oral Motion to convert the
Temporary Restraining Order into a Preliminary Injunction, are hereby DENIED. Docket
Number 28 and the portion of Docket Number 36 requesting dissolution of the Temporary
Restraining Order are GRANTED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

Dee Benson
United States District Judge

2