The Nevada Supreme Court recently ruled on the limits of temporary restraining orders (TROs) in a case involving a noncompete agreement. This decision affects employees and employers navigating such agreements, clarifying how long a TRO can last. The ruling emphasizes that even TROs issued with notice must adhere to strict time limits, ensuring that individuals' rights are protected.
The case, titled Havens v. District Court (Carwil, LLC), No. 90987, involved Shane Havens and Elite Machining Services LLP as petitioners against the Sixth Judicial District Court and CarWil, LLC, the real party in interest. The dispute arose after CarWil sought to enforce a noncompete agreement against Havens, who had worked for CarWil and later engaged in activities that allegedly violated the agreement.
In November 2024, CarWil initiated a lawsuit against Havens and Elite Machining Services, claiming they breached the noncompete agreement. CarWil requested a TRO and a preliminary injunction to enforce the agreement. The district court granted a TRO on June 9, 2025, which was set to remain in effect indefinitely until the court ordered otherwise. This indefinite duration raised concerns, as it did not align with the typical limits for such orders.
As the case progressed, the district court scheduled a hearing for a preliminary injunction but later continued it after CarWil revealed a new noncompete agreement that superseded the original one. Meanwhile, Havens and Elite Machining Services allegedly violated the TRO, prompting CarWil to seek enforcement and the court to find the petitioners in contempt.
Following these developments, Havens and Elite Machining Services filed a writ petition challenging the TRO, arguing that it exceeded the allowable duration under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) 65(b). They contended that the TRO was overbroad and improperly maintained beyond its intended time frame.
The Nevada Supreme Court, led by Justice Parraguirre, ruled that the district court had erred by allowing the TRO to remain in effect beyond the 14-day limit set by NRCP 65(b)(2). The court stated, "As its name suggests, a TRO should provide temporary relief by preserving the status quo only until the merits of a motion for a preliminary injunction can be heard and decided." This ruling clarified that the 14-day limit applies to all TROs, regardless of whether they were issued with or without notice.
The court's decision highlighted that the purpose of a TRO is to maintain the existing situation temporarily until a more permanent resolution can be reached. Justice Parraguirre noted, "The law does not allow an indefinite and unreviewable extension of a TRO without the consent of the enjoined party." This ruling aligns with federal interpretations of similar rules, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to time limits on TROs.
As a result of this ruling, the Nevada Supreme Court granted the petitioners' request and directed the district court to declare the TRO expired as of June 23, 2025. The court emphasized that the district court's continued enforcement of the TRO was arbitrary and capricious.
This decision has significant implications for both employees and employers in Nevada. It establishes a clear precedent regarding the duration of TROs, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to indefinite restrictions without proper legal justification. Employers seeking to enforce noncompete agreements must now be mindful of these limits when pursuing TROs.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how courts handle similar cases involving noncompete agreements and TROs. It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and protecting individuals' rights in employment disputes. The ruling also serves as a reminder for employers to carefully draft noncompete agreements and understand the legal framework surrounding their enforcement.
As for the potential for further legal action, the petitioners have already filed a notice of appeal following the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction. This indicates that the case may continue to evolve as the parties navigate the legal landscape surrounding noncompete agreements and TROs.