Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65
State Bar Committee Note
1966 Amendment
In view of the possibly drastic consequences of a temporary restraining order, the opposition should be heard, if feasible, before the order is granted. Many judges have properly insisted that, when time does not permit formal notice of the application to the adverse party, some expedient, such as telephonic notice to the attorney for the adverse party, be resorted to if this can reasonably be done. On occasion, however, temporary restraining orders have been issued without any notice when it was feasible for some fair, although informal, notice to be given.
Heretofore the first sentence of subdivision (b), in referring to a notice “served” on the “adverse party” on which a “hearing” could be held, perhaps invited the interpretation that the order might be granted without notice if the circumstances did not permit of a formal hearing on the basis of a formal notice. The subdivision is amended to make it plain that informal notice, which may be communicated to the attorney rather than the adverse party, is to be preferred to no notice at all.
Before notice can be dispensed with, the applicant’s counsel must give his certificate as to any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. This certificate is in addition to the requirement of an affidavit or verified complaint setting forth the facts as to the irreparable injury which would result before the opposition could be heard.
The amended subdivision continues to recognize that a temporary restraining order may be issued without any notice. In domestic relations cases, there may be a reasonable fear of bodily harm, and this is expressly regarded as one kind of irreparable injury which, if supported by affidavit and certificate, justifies a temporary restraining order without notice.