Brown et al v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 13 Motion for Hearing and 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 07/17/12. (sk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM BOBBY BROWN,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12-CV-120-RWS

ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [13]. After a review of the record, the Court enters the
following order.
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to
enjoin Defendant SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (“SunTrust”) from foreclosing on
their property. Essentially, Plaintiffs argue that the subject property’s
subdivision “was approved using falsified engineering and sub-standard lots in
order to maximize profits to developers at the expense of the unsuspecting
buyers, lenders[,] and investors in the subdivision, to the detriment of Lake
Lanier (Waters of the United States), to the tax payers [sic] of the county,

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

state[,] and nation.” Dkt. No. [13] at ¶ 4. Plaintiffs allege that because they are
contractually required to alert SunTrust to any environmental hazard on their
property, SunTrust should not be able to foreclose as the foreclosure would
deny the Plaintiffs standing to assert their environmental challenges against
various third-parties. Id. at ¶ 18. They also assert that SunTrust should not be
allowed to foreclose on their property and then sell it to unsuspecting buyers.
Id.
Before a court will grant a motion for a preliminary injunction, the
moving party must establish that: (1) “it has substantial likelihood of success on
the merits,” (2) it will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is not granted, (3) the
threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief may inflict on the non-moving
party, and (4) entry of relief “would not be adverse to the public interest.” KH
Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1268 (11th Cir. 2006). “Of
these four requisites, the first 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).
The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs are appearing pro se. Thus, their
complaint is more leniently construed and “held to less stringent standards than

2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v, Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). However, nothing in
that lenience excuses a plaintiff from compliance with the stringent
requirements to obtain preliminary injunctive relief.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of
success on the merits. They do not allege that they are current on their loan
payments, nor do they allege that SunTrust does not have the authority to
foreclose. See Dkt. Nos. [1, 4]. Moreover, it is only speculative that SunTrust
would not disclose a known environmental hazard on the property. Thus,
Plaintiffs’ cannot prove a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and
their Motion [13] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 17th day of July, 2012.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)