2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
58 I would have to check with my client about. I think it's something they could potentially be open to, at least while this issue is being resolved in the very short-term, but I can't speak for my client at this moment without checking with them. THE COURT: You argued in your papers that the Board only sent a cease and desist letter and so Kalshi has not shown that enforcement is imminent and, therefore, no irreparable harm. It seems to sort of fly in the face of, we're not agreeing to stay anything while you seek a TRO and, oh, by the way, we're going to seek a TRO. Doesn't that kind of contradict the notion that harm is not imminent? You're here right now trying to stop them from doing what they want to do. MS. WHELAN: Sure. You know, certainly the threat of prosecution can constitute imminent harm, so I would agree, as things have developed, there is -- there is some threat of harm. Again, I don't think it's irreparable and I don't -- and I think that it's of Kalshi's own doing, as, you know, Your Honor's dialogue with counsel previously had gone into. They could have sought pre-approval and kind of stopped this at the get-go. Instead, they seemed to kind of take advantage of the political transition that was going on in Washington to try and self-certify these contracts and get them out in Nevada before really getting the approval that could have helped avoid some of these harms.
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