GRANT
v.
SEUSY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order was denied due to failure to meet procedural requirements.
Plaintiff Nancy Grant filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against the 12th judicial circuit and its officers, seeking to prohibit further…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order cases and more on FLexlaw
KEEN and VINCE SICA,
Defendants. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
“The grant of a preliminary injunction in advance of trial is an extraordinary remedy.” McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dept., 455 F. App’x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted). In addition to the usual requirements for injunctive relief, a district court may issue an ex parte temporary restraining order only if (A) 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 (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). This Court’s Local Rules establish additional requirements for any request for a temporary restraining order, including: (2) The motion must be supported by allegations of specific facts shown in the verified complaint or accompanying affidavits, not only that the moving party is threatened with irreparable injury, but that such injury is so imminent that notice and a hearing on the application for preliminary injunction is impractical if not impossible.
(3) The motion should also: (i) describe precisely the conduct sought to be enjoined; (ii) set forth facts on which the Court can make a reasoned determination as to the amount of security which must be posted pursuant to Rule 65(c); (iii) be accompanied by a proposed form of temporary restraining order prepared in strict accordance with the several requirements contained in Rule 65(b) and (d); and (iv) should contain or be accompanied by a supporting legal memorandum or brief.
(4) The brief or legal memorandum submitted in support of the motion must address the following issues: (i) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim; (ii) the irreparable nature of the threatened injury and the reason that notice cannot be given; (iii) the potential harm that might be caused to the opposing parties or others if the order is issued; and (iv) the public interest, if any. Local Rule 4.05(b). Grant’s one-page Motion seeks unreasonably broad and vague injunctive relief without satisfying any of the requirements listed in this Order. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff Nancy Grant’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 19th day of September, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record