United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
JOHN HOWELL, ET AL.
LAKE VILLAS NO.2 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
ORDER & REASONS
M. AFRICK UNITED STATUES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is plaintiffs John Howell and Elise LaMartina's
ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction. For the following reasons, the motion
facts of this case are familiar to this Court. As the Court
previously explained in a separate case based on the same
underlying facts, “[t]he background of this litigation
is somewhat confusing.” The plaintiffs move for both a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction
enjoining the defendants from: using an order issued by the
22nd Judicial District Court for St. Tammany Parish in
connection with any judicial proceeding; liquidating,
“or otherwise disposing of, ” the promissory note
that is the subject of the foregoing order; foreclosing on or
auctioning real property allegedly securing the promissory
note; and obtaining or executing an order directing any
person or entity from seizing or selling such real
property. The crux of the plaintiffs' argument
is that the state court order should be declared void and
should, therefore, not be permitted to serve as the basis for
foreclosure on the real property associated with the
date, January 3, 2019, Court personnel spoke with Elise
LaMartina, who informed the Court that she was going to
provide copies of the motion to the pertinent
defendants. However, the Court has not been apprised
of any such actual notice. Thus, the Court will analyze the
request for a temporary restraining order pursuant to Rule
65(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
to Rule 65(b)(1), [t]he court may issue a temporary
restraining order without written or oral notice to the
adverse party or its attorney only if:
specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint
clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can
be heard in opposition; and
movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made
to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
initial matter, although the plaintiffs explain the efforts
they made to provide the defendants with notice, they do not
explain why notice should not be required. Furthermore,
neither plaintiff submitted an affidavit, nor have the
plaintiffs submitted a verified complaint. The
plaintiffs' noncompliance with Rule 65, alone, is
sufficient for the Court to deny the motion. See Garza v.
M&T Bank Corp., No. 14-1137, 2014 WL 12591887, at *1
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2014) (“[T]emporary restraining
orders are appropriate only when the movant has shown
entitlement to a preliminary injunction by meeting the
requirements of [Rule 65(b)(1)].”).
the plaintiffs have failed to prove their entitlement to the
relief sought. Both a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction are extraordinary remedies that may
only be granted if the movant demonstrates: (1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat
that failure to grant the requested relief will result in
irreparable harm; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs
any damage that the order may cause the opposing party; and
(4) that the order will not disserve the public interest.
Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir.
1991); see also Palmer v. Fox Broadcasting Corp.,
No. 02-108, 2002 WL 31027440, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 15, 2002)
(Vance, J.). The movant “must satisfy a cumulative
burden of proving each of the four elements enumerated before
a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction can
be granted.” Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991,
993 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Holland Am. Ins. Co. v.
Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985)
(“Injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy, not to be granted routinely, but only when the
movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of
plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. They argue that,
without the injunctive relief, the defendants will foreclose
on or “otherwise alienate” the relevant real
property and that the purpose of this lawsuit will be
frustrated. However, accepting all of the
plaintiffs' allegations as true, even if the Court were
to find the existence of a substantial threat of irreparable
harm, the plaintiffs have failed to address the first and
fourth elements entirely. They have not even attempted to argue
that they are substantially likely to prevail on their claims
or that the public interest is not disserved by granting
their motion, nor have they provided evidence to prove the
same. PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & Western Ry.
Co., 418 F.3d 535, 546 (5th Cir. 2005) (“The
plaintiff has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence
to justify the grant of a preliminary injunction.”). As
a result, the plaintiffs have not established the
prerequisites for injunctive relief.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for a
temporary restraining order and a ...