MB Financial Bank, N.A. v. Struthers et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's #3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by MB Financial Bank, N.A; setting a( TELEPHONIC Status Conference for 4/22/2016 10:00 AM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) and setting a hearing as to #3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction :( Motion Hearing for 5/4/2016 09:30 AM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MB FINANCIAL BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-11052

HOLLY STRUTHERS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,”
AND SETTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Complaint (Dkt. # 1), and promptly served
each of the Defendants the next day. About a week and a half later, on April 1, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.” (Dkt. # 4.) The motion was served on Defendants via first class mail on
April 4, 2016. The court has reviewed the Motion and determined that the requirements
for issuing a temporary restraining order are not met in this case.
When evaluating a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), a district
court must strictly adhere to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
Leslie v. Penn C. R. Co., 410 F.2d 750, 751 (6th Cir. 1969) (quoting Austin v. Altman,
332 F.2d 273, 275 (2d Cir. 1964)). Rule 65 states in relevant part that:
A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice
to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if (1) it clearly appears
from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damages will result to the
applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in
opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing

the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the
reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). When evaluating whether to grant a TRO, the court must
consider “(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2)
whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury absent a [TRO], (3) whether granting
the [TRO] would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether the public interest
would be served by granting the [TRO].” N.E. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Blackwell,
467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). These factors are “interrelated
considerations that must be balanced together,” not independent prerequisites. Id.
(quoting Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150,
153 (6th Cir. 1991)). “For example, the probability of success that must be
demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury the movants
will suffer absent the [TRO].” Id. (citing Griepentrog, 945 F.2d at 153).
In addition to injunctive orders in various forms, Plaintiff specifically seeks
“compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages,” and an “award [of] Plaintiff
attorneys’ fees and costs herein.” (Dkt. #1, Page ID 18). With that, Plaintiff indicates
with sufficient clarity that the damages sought are, in fact, measurable in money, and
that the injuries complained of commensurately reparable. For those reasons, based
upon and limited to the facts averred in the instant Complaint and Motion, Plaintiff fails
to establish that “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result . . . before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Motion for Preliminary Injunction” (Dkt. # 4) is DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it is
DENIED with respect to the request for a temporary restraining order.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must serve this order on each of the
Defendants individually by no later than Monday, April 11, 2016. The court will then
conduct a telephone conference on Friday, April 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss and
seek agreement on the logistics of a preliminary injunction hearing in the form of a nonjury trial. The court will initiate the call.
FINALLY IT IS ORDERED that the court will conduct a hearing on the request for
a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.1 Natural parties and
entity party representatives with fully dispositive settlement authority are required to
appear.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 7, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, April 7, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

1

Should the parties settle this case prior to the hearing, the parties should inform
the court immediately. The hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction will then
be cancelled.
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\16-11052.MBFINANCIAL.tro.deny.jah.final.wpd

3