Lane v. Lane et al

Filing 44

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; denying 37 Motion Emergency Motion to Approve Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 7/20/2015.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Robert M. Lane,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dr. Vikki L. Lane, Bruce Glesby,
Marisa Beuoy, David K. Pontes,
John T. Rudnick, Carol Shick, Griffith
& Thornburgh, LLP Kitch, Drutchas,
Wagner, Valitutti & Sherbrook PC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 9:15-1740-RMG

ORDER

----------------------------)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Approve Preliminary
Injunction (Dkt. No. 37). The Magistrate Judge assigned to the case has submitted a Report and
Recommendation (4<R&R") (Dkt. No. 40) that recommends denying the motion. The Court
hereby ADOPTS the R&R in whole.

Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this case on April 22, 2015, suing his ex-wife and her
attorneys for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, perjury, malicious and fraudulent prosecution,
fraud and breach of contract, use of legal filings for an improper purpose, and failure to supervise
and assure competence of attorney and employees.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on April 22 (Dkt. No.4), and
Defendants filed a response to that motion on June 4 (Dkt. No. 15). Although Defendants have
not yet filed a response to the emergency motion, the Magistrate Judge referred to the response
to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in preparing the R&R. In addition, on July 20,2015,
Defendants submitted an Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Approve First Amended Complaint,

which the Court has considered in preparation of this Order. Because the sale of assets that is the
subject of the instant emergency motion is scheduled for July 21, 2015, it is necessary that an
order issue prior to any further briefing by the parties.

Analysis
Preliminary injunctions are "extraordinary remedies involving the exercise of very far­
reaching power to be granted only sparingly and in limited circumstances." MicroStrategy, Inc.
v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001). To qualify, the moving party must show
(1) likelihood it will succeed on the merits; (2) likelihood it will suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of a preliminary injunction; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that
the injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. De! Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,20
(2008).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that a review of the briefing currently filed in
this case shows that Plaintiff s claims are unlikely to succeed on the merits due to hurdles
relating to jurisdiction, venue, and statutes of limitations. And, as is evidenced by orders issued
by other courts addressing of many of the same issues presented here (e.g. TROs issued by the
honorable Marvin H. Dukes, III, Master-in-Equity for Beaufort County in Lane v. Lane, Case
No. 2013-CP-07-2999, finding that Ms. Lane had shown a likelihood of success on the merits as
to her claim that Mr. Lane fraudulently and illegally transferred funds subject to previously
entered judgments entered against him and in favor of Ms. Lane, filed as Dkt. Nos. 42-1,42-2), it
appears likely that the underlying financial disputes will be controlled by res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel and are inappropriate for disposition in this court.

2

Conclusion
The Court hereby ADOPTS in whole the R&R (Dkt. No. 40) and DENIES the
Emergency Motion to Approve Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 37).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

. ard Mark Ger
United States District Court Judge
July 'UJ, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

3