govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_26-cv-00683-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
GUARDIAN PROTECTION  ) 
GROUP LLC, ) 
  ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
  ) Case No.:  4:26-cv-00683-MTS 
v.  )   
  ) 
THOMAS MURPHY and AMERICA  ) 
FIRST ASSURANCE,  ) 
  ) 
 Defendants. ) 
  ) 
   
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
 On May 12, 2026, after a hearing, t he Court granted Plaintiff  Guardian Protection 
Group LLC’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and scheduled a hearing on its Motion 
for Preliminary Injunction for May 27, 2026.  Doc. [11].  The Court also granted Plaintiff ’s 
Motion for Expedited Discovery.  Doc. [14].  On May 21, 2026, Plaintiff and Defendant 
America First Assurance filed a Joint Motion to Extend T emporary Restraining Order.  Doc. 
[19].  In it, they represented that Defendant Thomas Murphy consented to the request.  Id. ¶ 4.  
Since all parties consented, the Court granted the Motion and extended the TRO through June 
09, 2026.  Doc. [20]; s ee Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).  And , per the parties ’ request, the Court 
moved the preliminary injunction hearing to June 04, 2026.  Doc. [20]. 
 Plaintiff and Defendant America First Assurance  have filed another Joint Motion to 
Extend Temporary Restraining Order.  Doc. [25].  They once again  ask that the Court extend 
the TRO—this time for an additional twenty-eight days—and that the Court reschedule the 
already-rescheduled preliminary injunction hearing.  This time, though, they write that 
Defendant Murphy ha s not “engaged at all with the present litigation ,” id. ¶ 9, and that 
Case: 4:26-cv-00683-MTS     Doc. #:  27     Filed: 06/01/26     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
- 2 - 
Plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to speak with Defendant Murphy, having not “receive[d] a 
response of any kind from him,” id. ¶ 7.   
The Court will grant Plaintiff and Defendant America First Assurance’s Motion in part 
and extend the TR O, but only as to Defendant America First Assurance.  The Court will not 
extend the TRO as to Defendant M urphy because he has not consented to an additional 
extension, and Rule 65(b)(2) makes clear that “ a TRO lasting longer than twenty- eight days 
requires that the adverse party consent .”  U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Commc ’ns, Inc., 
775 F.3d 128, 132 n.2 (2d Cir. 2014); accord Pac. Kidney & Hypertension, LLC v. Kassakian, 
156 F. Supp. 3d 1219, 1223 n.1 (D. Or. 2016) (citing Horn Abbot Ltd. v. Sarsaparilla Ltd., 601 
F. Supp. 360, 370 n.12 (N.D. Ill. 1984)). 
 Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED  that the Second Joint Motion to Extend Temporary  
Restraining Order, Doc. [25], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  The Temporary 
Restraining Order entered by the Court, Doc. [11], is EXTENDED through Tuesday, July 
07, 2026, as to Defendant America First Assurance only.  The extended Temporary Restraining 
Order previously entered against Defendant Murphy will expire Tuesday, June 09, 2026.  See 
Doc. [20]. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 
Injunction is RESET  from June 04, 2026, to Wednesday, July 01, 2026, at 1: 30 p.m., in 
Courtroom 16-S of the Thomas F. Eagelton United States Courthouse. 
So ORDERED this 1st day of June 2026. 
_________________________________ 
MATTHEW T. SCHELP 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 4:26-cv-00683-MTS     Doc. #:  27     Filed: 06/01/26     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight