Reppert v. Feld et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's request for "Emergency Injunction" (See Filing No. 1 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KYLE REPPERT,
Plaintiff,

8:17CV102

vs.
KERRY FELD, CALIBER HOME
LOANS INC., and THEODORE E.
VASKO,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s request for an “Emergency
Injunction.” (See Filing No. 1.) It appears that Plaintiff’s home was foreclosed
upon. (See id. at CM/ECF p. 8.) The home subsequently sold to Defendant
Theodore E. Vasko. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 28-32.) Vasko filed suit against Plaintiff
in Douglas County Court in Omaha, Nebraska because Plaintiff continues to
unlawfully occupy the home. (Id.) The trial on Vasko’s suit against Plaintiff was
set to begin today. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 27.) Essentially, Plaintiff wants the court to
prevent his eviction in the event that Vasko wins suit. (See id. at CM/ECF p. 5.)
In Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981), the
court clarified the factors district courts should consider when determining whether
to grant a motion for preliminary injunctive relief:
(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of
balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction
will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant
will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.

Id. at 114. “No single factor in itself is dispositive; rather, each factor must be
considered to determine whether the balance of equities weighs toward granting
the injunction.” United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir.
1998). “At base, the question is whether the balance of equities so favors the
movant that justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo until
the merits are determined. . . .” Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113.
In consideration of all of the factors, the court will not issue preliminary
injunctive relief. There is no threat of irreparable harm to Plaintiff since, if he is
wrongfully evicted, any responsible parties will be liable in damages. Further, the
current state court proceeding provides Plaintiff with a proper forum to address
whether Vasko is the proper owner or not of the property. The court sees no reason
to “intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined . . . .”
Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s request for “Emergency
Injunction” (See Filing No. 1) is denied.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2