Case 2:25-cv-01541-JCM-DJA Document 7 Filed 08/19/25 Page 18 of 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
On May 19, 2025, Robinhood met with the Board again and sought an agreement from the State of Nevada to permit Robinhood at least temporarily to offer its customers the same sports-related event contracts that are traded on Kalshi’s exchange. Orsini Decl. ¶ 4. The Board declined Robinhood’s proposal. Id. ARGUMENT “To qualify for a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships favors the movant, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” KalshiEx , 2025 WL 1073495, at *2 (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). The third and fourth factors “merge when the Government is the opposing party.” Doe v. Horne , 115 F.4th 1083, 1098 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Nken v. Holder , 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)). The movant must make the same showing to obtain a temporary restraining order. See LIT Ventures, LLC v. Carranza , 457 F. Supp. 3d 906, 908 (D. Nev. 2020) (quoting Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co. , 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)) (“The legal standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is ‘substantially identical’ to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.”). I. ROBINHOOD IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. This Court has already held that Kalshi is likely to succeed in establishing that the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over sports-related event contracts traded on Kalshi’s designated contract market preempts Nevada gaming laws. KalshiEx , 2025 WL 1073495, at *3-8. 2 The 2 The Court was in good company when it did so; numerous other courts have found that the CEA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC is broad and preempts other regulatory schemes, including both state and other federal statutes. See, e.g. , Hunter v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n , 711 F.3d 155, 158-59 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission lacked jurisdiction in light of CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction); KalshiEx, LLC v. Flaherty , No. 25-CV- 02152-ESK-MJS, 2025 WL 1218313, at *4-6 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2025) (hereinafter “ KalshiEx (D.N.J.) ”) (preemption by CEA and CFTC regulations of New Jersey gambling laws), appeal filed , No. 25-1922 (3d Cir. May 8, 2025); Witzel v. Chartered Sys. Corp. of N.Y., Ltd. , 490 F. Supp. 343, 347-48 (D. Minn. 1980) (preemption by CEA and CFTC regulations of Minnesota Securities Act); Hofmayer v. Dean Witter & Co. , 459 F. Supp. 733, 737 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (claims arising under federal and state securities statutes barred in light of CFTC’s exclusive
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs