Hampton v. First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; Defers 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction request until Defendants have an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs Application. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 09/30/2016. (ELW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
APRIL D. HAMPTON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-632-JJB-RLB
FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORP., ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on An Application for a Temporary Restraining Order,
Preliminary Injunction, and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 2), filed by the pro se Plaintiff, April D.
Hampton. The Court’s jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
For the reasons stated herein, the Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order
is DENIED. The Court DEFERS ruling on the preliminary injunction request until Defendants
have an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.

BACKGROUND1
This dispute is about the ownership of property in East Baton Rouge Parish and whether

certain mortgage lenders and their assignees own, or have the right to sell, Plaintiff’s property. The
Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) asserting nine causes of action against various named
Defendants and other unnamed Defendants (“Does 1-100”) whose identities have not yet been
determined.
On the same day that she filed the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed an An Application for a
Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Declaratory Relief (“the Application”).

1

The Court is having difficulty understanding what exactly occurred here as the Complaint and Application appear to
be copied from a sample template created for use in New York State Courts. Plaintiff has not alleged the date of the
purported foreclosure sale nor has she provided the Court with any other facts regarding the pending foreclosure sale.
She has merely stated, in her TRO Application, that “[a] temporary restraining order is appropriate to maintain the
status quo. Plaintiff’s home will be sold within the next week and Plaintiff [is] subject to eviction actions, without
immediate intervention of this Court.” Application 1, Doc. 2.

Like the Complaint, the Application appears to be copied from a template meant for use in New
York State Courts. Additionally, it contains nothing more than conclusory statements that Plaintiff
will succeed on the merits and that the Plaintiff is subject to an eviction action.
II.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65 provides: “The court may issue a temporary

restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A)
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 JUDGE JJ. BRADY be heard in
the adverse party can
opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writingUNITED STATES give notice and
any efforts made to
the reasons why it should not be required.”2 First, while the Court is aware that the Plaintiff is
DISTRICT COURT
proceeding pro se, she has failed to certify in writing any effortsMIDDLE give notice to the
made to
Defendants, nor has she stated the reasons why notice shouldDISTRICT OF Second, even if she
not be required.
had given notice, the Plaintiff has not clearly pled specific facts that show irreparable injury will
LOUISIANA
result before the Defendants can be heard in opposition. In fact, the Plaintiff has not provided any
details about a pending foreclosure sale. The only fact the Court knows is that “Plaintiff’s home
will be sold within the next week and Plaintiff [is] subject to eviction actions, without immediate
intervention of this Court.”3
III.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy; it should never be

awarded as of right.”4 The decision whether to grant or deny a request for a preliminary injunction
is within the sound discretion of the trial court.5 A preliminary injunction may be granted only if
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (b).
Application 1, Doc. 2.
4
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
5
Allied Marketing Group, Inc. v. CDL Marketing, Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1989).
3

the moving party establishes each of the following four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (a) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in
irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may
cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. 6 Due to
the fact that an injunction is such an extraordinary remedy, it should only be granted if the movant
has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four factors.7
As a threshold matter, a preliminary injunction cannot be granted unless notice of the
motion has been provided to the opposing party.8 As of the date of this Ruling, there is no evidence
in the record to indicate that Defendants have been served with the Application.9 On that basis,
this Court will defer ruling on the request for preliminary injunction until Defendants receive
notice of the Application and have an opportunity to respond.
IV.

CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is DENIED. The

Court DEFERS ruling on the preliminary injunction request until Defendants have an opportunity
to respond to Plaintiff’s Application.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 30, 2016.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

6

Id.
Id.
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1); see also Watts v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 2012 WL 1901304, at *3 (D. Minn.
May 25, 2012).
9
In fact, there is no evidence that Defendants have even been served with the Summons and Complaint.
7