A.R.D. et al v. St. Paul Catholic School et al

Filing 23

Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order(Related Doc # 3 ). Judge John R. Adams on 4/30/2013.(P,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

A.R.D. AS MOTHER, LEGAL GUARDIAN
AND NEXT FRIEND OF MINOR
CHILDREN J.D.(3RD) AND J.D.(5TH), et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. PAUL CATHOLIC SCHOOL, et al.,

) CASE NO. 5:13 CV 0307
)
)
) JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for ex parte temporary restraining
order. Doc. 3. This Court finds that a temporary restraining order is unnecessary and DENIES
Plaintiffs’ motion.
I. Facts
On February 12, 2013, Plaintiffs, two minor children, filed suit against Defendants
alleging breach of contract and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1973, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On February 20, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for a
temporary restraining order requesting that they be allowed to continue attending school at
Defendant St. Paul Catholic School pending the resolution of the matter. Plaintiffs also seek to
enjoin Defendants from causing them to lose their educational scholarships and from
“committing any further discriminatory acts and conduct relating to [them.]” On March 8, 2013,
Defendants filed a notice indicating that the requested relief may be moot by virtue of an offer of
re-enrollment. On March 21, 2013, Plaintiffs responded to the notice asserting that a TRO is
needed despite their re-enrollment in school to ensure that they are not discriminated against.

II. Law and Analysis
When determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order
or a preliminary injunction, this Court considers the following four
factors:
(1) whether the movant has a ‘strong’ likelihood of success on the
merits;
(2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable injury;
(3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause
substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest
would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction.
McPherson v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 459 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc)
(quoting Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 1995)).
This Court must balance the four factors while noting that none should be considered a
prerequisite to the grant of a preliminary injunction. See United Food & Commercial Workers
Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio Reg'l Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 347 (6th Cir. 1998).
Moreover, a plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence in support of the four factors.
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260, 267–68, 747 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio
Ct.App. 2000).
The failure to show irreparable harm, by itself, can justify the denial of preliminary
injunctive relief without consideration of the other three factors. See Hacker v. FBOP, 2006 WL
2559792, *8 (E.D.Mich. Sept.1, 2006) (Lawson, J.) (“The failure to demonstrate irreparable
harm is fatal to the petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court need
not evaluate the other factors.”). Forster v. Schofield, 2011 WL 4915804, at *5 (M.D.Tenn.
Oct.17, 2011) (“The failure to show irreparable harm, by itself, can justify the denial of
preliminary injunctive relief without consideration of the other three factors.”). The United States
Supreme Court has explained that:

Our frequently reiterated standard requires plaintiffs seeking
preliminary relief to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in
the absence of an injunction. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
103, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Granny Goose
Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 441, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39
L.Ed.2d 435 (1974); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 502, 94
S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974); see also 11A C. Wright, A.
Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1, p.
139 (2d ed.1995) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) (applicant must
demonstrate that in the absence of a preliminary injunction, “the
applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on
the merits can be rendered”); Id., at 155, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct.
669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (“[A] preliminary injunction will not be
issued simply to prevent the possibility of some remote future
injury”). Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a
possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our
characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
entitled to such relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972,
117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (per curiam).
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d
249 (2008).
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to show the likelihood of irreparable
injury if the Court were to deny the requested injunction. Injunctive relief is only available when
legal remedies are shown to be inadequate. Celebrezze, at 290. Plaintiffs have failed to establish
that they have no legal remedy to make them whole. The minor children have been re-enrolled in
the school and have failed to demonstrate that Defendant St. Paul Catholic School has indicated
any intent to terminate that enrollment.
Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants from committing any future
discriminatory acts against them. First, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate, at this time, that
they have been discriminated against. Second, Plaintiffs have failed to show the likelihood of
future discrimination should the injunction not be granted. The Court believes that the initiation
of this litigation has brought the acts of the Defendants into full view of the Court and that a

temporary restraining order is not necessary to prevent any irreparable harm upon the minor
children.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any likelihood of irreparable harm is fatal to their
request for a temporary restraining order. As such, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 30, 2013
Date

____/s/ Judge John R. Adams_______
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT