Walker et al v Santana, et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 7 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court DENIES plaintiff Walker's motion for a TRO (Docket No. 7). Signed by Judge Francisco A. Besosa on 12/30/2014. (RRS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
SHIRLEY WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL NO. 14-1882 (FAB)

FRANK SANTANA; COLMADO
SANTANA,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
BESOSA, District Judge.
Plaintiff Shirley Walker filed suit against Frank Santana and
his business, Colmado Santana, on December 3, 2014, and served the
summons on defendant Frank Santana on December 5, 2014.
Nos.

1

&

Plaintiff

5.)
Walker

Defendants
now

moves

restraining order (“TRO”).

have
the

not

answered

Court

to

the

issue

a

(Docket

complaint.
temporary

(Docket No. 7.)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (“Rule 65”), a
court may issue a TRO only 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.”
65(b)(1)(A).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

To demonstrate irreparable injury, plaintiff Walker

alleges in her affidavit that the property value of her home has
decreased and her “rental stream has been interrupted” because of

Civil No. 14-1882 (FAB)
defendants’ behavior.

2
(Docket No. 7 at p. 25.)

This type of

economic harm, however, does not constitute “irreparable injury”
because the financial loss can be remedied with money damages. See
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (“[T]he temporary loss of
income, ultimately to be recovered, does not usually constitute
irreparable injury.”) Next, plaintiff Walker alleges in her motion
that she is “returning to Puerto Rico in January and will be forced
to endure hours of obnoxious music and loud drunk patrons camped
out in front of her house.”

(Docket No. 7 at p. 6.)

Plaintiff

Walker states more generally in her affidavit that she will return
to Puerto Rico for three months “in 2015.”
Emotional

distress

that

plaintiff

Walker

Id.

may

at p. 25.

suffer

on

an

uncertain, future date falls short of Rule 65’s requirement that
“immediate and irreparable injury” will result “before the adverse
party

can

be

heard

in

opposition.”

See

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

65(b)(1)(A).
Thus, plaintiff Walker fails to carry her burden of making a
clear showing that “immediate and irreparable injury” will result
without a TRO.

The Court therefore DENIES plaintiff’s motion for

a TRO, (Docket No. 7).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, December 30, 2014.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE