KEATON et al v. KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Based on Emergency Relief Needed Before 10:30 AM Due To New Emergency. [Filing No. 8.] (See order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/4/2016. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
EVELYN MILLS KEATON Mrs.,
BY PERSONAL REP. HARVEY KEATON
ESTATE OF,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN LLC For it’s
Attorneys James Milstone Esq., Christina
Essex Esq.,
HEATHER WELCH Judge, and
MAGISTRATES in Proceedings as to Mrs.
Evelyn Mills Keaton in the Marion Superior
Court Civil I,
MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
MARION SUPERIOR COURTS
ADMINISTRATION,
SUMMIT MANAGEMENT doing business as
McDonalds Corporation Store #20898,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-00485-JMS-MJD

ORDER
At 12:15 a.m. on March 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order Based on Emergency Relief Needed Before 10:30 AM Due To New Emergency.
[Filing No. 8.] In short, Plaintiff asks this Court to “effectively stay” the Indiana state trial court
proceedings in Keaton v. McDonalds, Cause No. 49D01-1307-CT-26255, arguing that a hearing
set to take place in Marion Superior Court at 11:15 a.m. today could cause her irreparable harm.
[Filing No. 8.] The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s filings. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s
motion is denied.

Although Plaintiff asks for a TRO and generally cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(b), she completely ignores the standards and burdens that accompany her request. The Court
may grant a TRO if the movant: (1) has some likelihood of succeeding on the merits, (2) has no
adequate remedy at law, and (3) will suffer irreparable harm if the order is denied. See Abbott
Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992). If these three elements are met, the
court will consider any irreparable harm to the non-movant and balance it against the harm to the
movant. See id. at 12. Because Plaintiff has not acknowledged or applied these factors to her case,
the Court cannot do so either. The Court notes, however, that it seems unlikely that Plaintiff has
no adequate remedy at law for decisions made by the state trial court with which she disagrees,
given that she can appeal those decisions at the appropriate time pursuant to the Indiana Trial
Rules.
Second, Plaintiff ignores that by filing her emergency request for a TRO ex parte,
Defendants have no notice of that request. Federal Rule 65(b)(1) provides that the Court may only
issue a TRO without notice if “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.” Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel must certify in writing any efforts
made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1)(B).
Although Plaintiff’s counsel has certified her motion under the penalties of perjury and attests that
she has served all of the parties with notice of Plaintiff’s federal action, [Filing No. 8 at 6], she
gives no explanation for why her pending request for a TRO was filed ex parte. Thus, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has not met the requirements for it to issue a TRO without notice pursuant
to Rule 65(b).

Third, Plaintiff ignores the Anti-Injunction Act set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which “limits
the power of federal courts to enjoin state-court proceedings.” CFE Grp., LLC v. Firstmerit Bank,
N.A., 809 F.3d 346, 350 (7th Cir. 2015). It provides that a federal court “may not grant an
injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,
or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” Moreover,
“an injunction that halts state court litigation is permissible only if it satisfies [the requirements of]
§ 2283 in addition to the traditional factors” required to obtain a TRO. Adkins v. Nestle Purina
PetCare Co., 779 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2015). In short, “Section 2283 leaves only limited
opportunities for federal intervention.” Id. Although Plaintiff completely ignores the statutory
restriction on this Court’s authority set forth in the Anti-Injunction Act, this Court will not do so.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order Based on Emergency Relief Needed Before 10:30 AM Due To New
Emergency. [Filing No. 8.]
3/4/2016

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Electronic Distribution via CM/ECF:
Evelyn Lecia Keaton
LAW OFFICE OF EVELYN KEATON
[e-mail]