Parker et al v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief. The Clerk is DIRECTED to refer the case to a Magistrate Judge, pursuant to Standing Order Number 08-01. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 7/11/2013. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DONALD PARKER and VERA
PARKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES,
INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-CV-00682-RWS

ORDER
This case was submitted to the Court for review of Plaintiffs’ request for
preliminary injunctive relief. After reviewing the record, the Court finds
Plaintiffs’ request for relief is due to be DENIED.
Before a court will grant a motion for a preliminary injunction, the
moving party must show:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that
irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3)
that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage
the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) that if
issued the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535,
1537 (11th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). “Of these four requisites, the first

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

factor, establishing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, is most
important . . . .” ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1294
(S.D. Fla. 2008).
This case arises out of the non-judicial foreclosure proceedings on real
property located at 7059 Galloway Point, Riverdale, Georgia, 30296 (“the
Property”). (Def.’s Not. of Removal, Ex. A (Security Deed), Dkt [1-1] at 4 of
25.) Plaintiffs appear to request preliminary injunctive relief in their
Complaint. (Compl., Dkt. [1-4] at WHEREFORE paragraph.)
The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. Thus, their
complaint is more leniently construed and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This leniency,
however, does not excuse a plaintiff from making the showing required to
obtain injunctive relief. The Court notes that Plaintiffs have requested a
preliminary injunction. However, Plaintiffs have not set forth any basis for the
Court to grant such relief. In any event, having carefully reviewed the
Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to
demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any of their
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

claims. Since Plaintiffs have failed on the most important of the requisites to a
grant of a preliminary injunction, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not entitled
to preliminary injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief having been DENIED,
the Clerk is DIRECTED to refer the case to a Magistrate Judge, pursuant to
Standing Order Number 08-01.

SO ORDERED, this 11th day of July, 2013.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)