2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
35 that this would be extraordinarily expensive for the company. And I can also point Your Honor to the -- it's the Simula case, which is actually cited in the defendants' opposition, which makes clear that irreparable harm does not require, you know, catastrophic out-of-business harm. The question is irreparable harm, and so the key point for these purposes is that this is tens of millions of dollars, it's months of negotiation that Kalshi could not get back even if it prevailed in this lawsuit. And that is all we need to show for purposes of irreparable harm. And, of course, we show far more because, separate and apart from the significant monetary harm that Kalshi would suffer from trying to comply -- and, again, I emphasize trying to comply because it's not clear that it really could comply in the short-term or immediately as the Board requires. And in the meantime, of course, it is incurring potential liability. But separate and apart from the monetary harm, there are other harms that we identify in the declaration -- THE COURT: Yeah. You brought up the Robinhood deal. Again, why isn't that compensable? It's a monetary loss. You lose the Robinhood deal, you either sue Robinhood for improperly backing away from the deal, or there's some other monetary remedy. How is that irreparable harm? MR. HAVEMANN: Because I'm not sure -- I want to be quite clear in my answer, but I'm not sure that there would be
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Judy K. Moore, RMR, CRR
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs