Williams v. Kissimmee Homes LTD. et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 34 Motion for Preliminary Injunction with leave to reassert. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/4/2017. (VMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION ELVIN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:16-cv-1601-Orl-37TBS KISSIMMEE HOMES LTD.; HALLMARK GROUP MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Elvin Williams Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 34), filed August 2, 2017. BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) action September 14, 2016, by filing an unverified Complaint against his landlords, Defendants Kissimmee Homes Ltd. and Hallmark Group Management, Inc. (Doc. 1.) In four counts, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated: (1) 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(1) and (f)(2) by subjecting Plaintiff to disparate treatment based on Plaintiff’s disability (“Disparate Treatment Claims”); (2) 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3) by failing to afford Plaintiff a requested reasonable accommodation (“Accommodation Claim”); and (3) 42 U.S.C. § 3617 by retaliating against Plaintiff for exerting rights under the FHA (“Retaliation Claim”). -1- Defendants filed a joint answer to the Complaint (Doc. 15), and the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order on January 17, 2017. (Doc. 19.) Pursuant to the parties’ joint request to extend all deadlines, the Court entered an Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order on July 28, 2017 (“CMSO”). (Doc. 33.) Four days later, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI Motion”) to “prevent further efforts to beach Plaintiff’s rights to quiet enjoyment of his premises.” (Doc. 34.) LEGAL STANDARDS & DISCUSSION The Court is authorized to issue a preliminary injunction in limited circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1); Local Rule 4.06. To obtain such relief, the movant must provide the non-movant with notice of the motion at least fourteen days in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing. See Local Rule 4.06(a). In addition, the movant must present its motion in the following manner: (1) the movant must request injunctive relief “by a separate motion” with an identifying title; (2) “[t]he motion must be supported by allegations of specific facts shown in the verified complaint or accompanying affidavits . . . “ (3) the motion also must: (i) describe precisely the conduct sought to be enjoined [(“Description Requirement”)]; (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)” (“Bond Facts Requirement”); (iii) “be accompanied by a proposed form . . . order prepared in strict accordance with the several -2- requirements contained in” Rule 65(a) and (d) (“Proposed Order Requirement”); and (iv) “should contain or be accompanied by a supporting legal memorandum or brief” (“Brief Requirement”). See Local Rules 4.05(b) & 4.06(b)(1). Here, Plaintiff has not satisfied the Proposed Order Requirement or the Bond Facts Requirement. Indeed, Plaintiff simply ignores that this Court cannot grant injunctive relief unless Plaintiffs give “security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). These procedural omissions are fatal to Plaintiffs’ effort to obtain injunctive relief at this time. See Korman v. Gray, No. 13-80031-CIV, 2014 WL 3695402, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jul. 24, 2014) (noting that injunctive relief would not issue without a bond); Hammer v. Bank of Am., No. 8:13-cv-1910-33AEP, 2013 WL 3866532, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 25, 2013) (noting that the technical deficiencies in plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief to prevent foreclosure sale justified denial of the motion). CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Elvin Williams Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 34) is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO REASSERT in strict compliance with this Order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and Local Rule 4.06. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 4, 2017. -3- Copies to: Counsel of Record -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?