Cook v. Chase Home Finance LLC
ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P Zatkoff. (MVer)
Cook v. Chase Home Finance LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LILLIAN F. COOK, Plaintiff, vs. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, Defendant. / ORDER AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse, in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on December __, 2010. PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. #2), filed on December 23, 2010. I. LEGAL STANDARD Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), the Court may issue a temporary restraining order 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." The Court is to consider the following four factors in determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to a temporary restraining order or other preliminary injunctive relief: (1) whether the movant has shown a strong or substantial likelihood or probability of success on the merits; CASE NO. 10-15108 HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
(2) (3) (4)
whether the movant has shown that he or she would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary relief is not issued; whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction will not cause substantial harm to third parties; and whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Assoc., Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 1995); UASCO Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc., 689 F.2d 94, 98 (6th Cir. 1982); Mason County Med. Ass'n v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256, 261 (6th Cir. 1977). II. FINDINGS OF THE COURT In her motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff requests that the Court stay the expiration of her March 14, 2011, redemption period for real property located in Troy, Michigan. Having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order. In particular, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she would suffer an immediate injury if the Court were to deny her requested relief because her redemption period does not expire until March 14, 2011. Additionally, Plaintiff's conclusory analysis and references to the factual allegations in her complaint fail to demonstrate a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her claims.
III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. #2) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 28, 2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record by electronic or U.S. mail on December 28, 2010. S/Marie E. Verlinde Case Manager (810) 984-3290
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?