Case 1:25-cv-14723 Document 10-1 Filed 08/19/25 Page 33 of 34 PageID: 105
of hardships tips in [movant’s] favor given that [plaintiff] is facing substantial monetary
expenditures, reputational damage, or civil and criminal prosecution based on the defendants’
demands that the defendants likely cannot make because they are preempted.” KalshiEx (D.
Nev.) , 2025 WL 1073495, at *7. The equities here strongly favor the issuance of an injunction.
IV. NO SECURITY—OR ONLY DE MINIMIS SECURITY—IS APPROPRIATE.
A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must “give[]
security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by
any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The
amount of the bond is left to the discretion of the Court. KalshiEx , 2025 WL 1218313, at *3
(quoting Marine Elec. Sys., Inc. v. MES Fin., LLC , 644 F. Supp. 3d 84, 96 (D.N.J. 2022)).
Here, no security is needed because Defendants will not suffer any non-speculative harm
by delaying enforcement. See Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart , 85 F.3d 975, 985 (2d Cir. 1996)
(affirming decision not to require bond). Recognizing, however, that this Court has held that its
discretion does not extend to not setting a bond at all, such security should be de minimis and no
greater than $100,000—the amount of the maximum fine of a violation under the Sports
Wagering Act and the amount of security required from Kalshi. KalshiEx , 2025 WL 1218313,
at *8 (citing N.J.S.A. § 5:12A-11(c)).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant Robinhood’s motion for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
26
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs