Jones v. The Lamar Company, L.L.C.

Filing 36

ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction against Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 31 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 11/15/2023. (JDE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ROBERT JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:23-cv-1461-CEH-AAS

THE LAMAR COMPANY, L.L.C.,
LAMAR ADVERTISING, LAMAR
ADVERTISING COMPANY, THE
LAMAR COMPANIES and LAMAR
MEDIA CORPORATION,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Robert Jones’ Motion for
Injunction against Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (Doc. 31). In
the motion, Plaintiff requests entry of an injunction precluding Defendants from “use
of fraudulent misrepresentation of material fact against Plaintiff.” Defendants filed a
response in opposition. Doc. 35. The Court, having considered the motion and being
fully advised in the premises, will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction against
Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
DISCUSSION
On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff Robert Jones, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint for
Violation of his Civil Rights against Defendant Lamar Company, L.L.C. Doc. 1. On
August 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Lamar Advertising,

Lamar Advertising Company, The Lamar Companies, and the Lamar Company,
L.L.C. for allegedly filing fraudulent real estate documents against Plaintiff in
violation of Florida Statutes. Doc. 7. After Defendants sought an extension of time to
respond to the Amended Complaint but before filing a response, Plaintiff filed a
pleading titled “First Amended Complaint” (Doc. 12) although it was the second
amended complaint that Plaintiff filed with neither leave of court, nor consent of
Defendants. Thereafter, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints (Doc. 18,
19) and a Motion for the Court to Take Judicial Notice of the protracted litigation
between Plaintiff and Defendants in the state court system. Doc. 17. Plaintiff then filed
multiple motions to amend (Docs. 21, 28), which Defendants oppose (Doc. 27, 29).
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking injunctive relief. Although
titled a “Motion for Injunction Against Defendants Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65,” Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief does not comply with the
procedural requirements of the Federal Rules or the Local Rules of this Court.
The requirements for a preliminary injunction under the Local Rules are the
same for a motion for temporary restraining order except the motion should include
“Preliminary Injunction” in the title, must attach each paper on which the movant
relies, and the movant is required to provide notice to each affected person as soon as
practical. See M.D. Fla. L.R. 6.02.
Middle District of Florida Local Rule 6.01 sets forth the requirements for a party
seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. A party seeking
injunctive relief must file a motion with a supporting legal memorandum and a
2

proposed order. M.D. Fla. Local Rule 6.01(a). The legal memorandum must establish
“(1) the likelihood that the movant ultimately will prevail on the merits of the claim,
(2) the irreparable nature of the threatened injury and the reason that notice is
impractical, (3) the harm that might result absent a restraining order, and (4) the nature
and extent of any public interest affected.” M.D. Fla. L.R. 6.01(b). See also Forsyth Cty.
v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 633 F.3d 1032, 1039 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that party
seeking entry of a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is
not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs whatever damage
the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction
would not be adverse to the public interest).
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be
granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to the four
requisites.” Am. C.L. Union of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cty. Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1198
(11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The entry of a preliminary injunction is “the
exception rather than the rule, and plaintiff must clearly carry the burden of
persuasion.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1179 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Texas v.
Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1975)).
In his motion, Plaintiff argues that he has a pending state court case involving
the same Defendants in which Defendants are using a 2016 contract against him.
Plaintiff denies he signed the 2016 contract, nor that he is bound by it. He claims he
recorded a Quitclaim deed in 2021 to clear up any confusion regarding ownership of
3

the property and to support his ownership position. Plaintiff complains that
Defendants have caused him to incur significant damages due to their fraudulent
misrepresentations in State court. He argues that Defendants cannot continue
defrauding the Circuit Court and County Court. He attaches to his motion a State
court order dated June 17, 2022, ruling against him in the case of Tichinia and Robert
Jones v. Lamar Company, LLC, Case Nos. 17-CC-012407, 17-CC-026201, in the County
Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Doc.
31 at 4–6.
Procedurally and substantively, Plaintiff’s motion is defective. The motion does
not include a memorandum of law that sets forth the requirements for a preliminary
injunction, nor does it include a proposed order. See M.D. Fla. L.R. 6.01, 6.02. Even
a liberal reading of the pro se motion1 fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to be
successful on the merits or that a substantial threat of irreparable injury would occur if
the injunction is not granted. Further, there is no information at all as to whether, if
issued, the injunction would be adverse to the public interest or how the purported
threatened injury compares to the damage caused to the opposing party if the
injunction issues.

Pleadings from pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys. Tannenbaum v. United States,148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, they
still must meet minimal pleading standards. Pugh v. Farmers Home Admin., 846 F. Supp. 60,
61 (M.D. Fla. 1994). To the extent Plaintiff intends to represent himself in this matter, he
should familiarize himself with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
for the Middle District of Florida. Additionally, Plaintiff is also encouraged to consult the
“Litigants Without Lawyer” guidelines on the Court’s website, located at
http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/litigants-without-lawyers.
1

4

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction against Defendants under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 65 (Doc. 31) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 15, 2023.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Plaintiff Robert Jones, pro se

5