B. et al v. Emkes et al

Filing 117

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff Dowdy and Interveners Begley, Bell, Carr, and Swift's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED; and 2. The hearing for preliminary injunction shall remain set for September 1, 2011, beginning at 9:00 a.m. This hearing is expected to last two days. It is so ORDERED. ENTER this 5th day of August, 2011. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 8/5/11. (af)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
H.B. (by his next friend Felicia Burk), et al.,
Plaintiffs,
B.B. (by her next friend Sadiatou Ashford),
et al.,
Plaintiff-Interveners,
v.
MARK EMKES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-cv-00663
JUDGE SHARP

ORDER
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) and LR 65.02, Plaintiff Dowdy and Interveners
Begley, Bell, Carr, and Swift (“Plaintiff and Interveners”) filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Docket Entry No. 100), to which Defendants filed a response (Docket Entry
No. 109). A hearing was held on August 5, 2011.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), the Court may grant a temporary
restraining order if it clearly appears from specific facts shown by testimony, affidavits or a
verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the
applicant. In deciding whether to grant a temporary restraining order, the Court must consider
four factors: (1) whether the party seeking the order has a strong likelihood of prevailing on the
merits of the case; (2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the order is not
entered; (3) the potential harm the order would cause others; and (4) the public interest. See
Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000).

1

Following careful consideration of the filings with the Court by the parties, statements
made by counsel in open court and the record as a whole, the Court hereby finds there is not
sufficient evidence that these specific individuals are entitled to a temporary restraining order
pending the ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry No. 54).
Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Interveners have not made a sufficient showing they will likely suffer
immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage pending the Court’s ruling on September 9,
2011. Particularly, in light of Defendants’ representation with regard to Dowdy and Begley that
there will be no adjustment in their current level of service prior to this Court’s ruling on the
preliminary injunction. Additionally, with respect to Bell, Carr and Swift, although there may be
harm related to the change in their level of service following implementation of their new ISPs, it
is not necessarily irreparable such that a temporary restraining order is requisite.
It is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Dowdy and Interveners Begley, Bell, Carr, and Swift’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED; and
2. The hearing for preliminary injunction shall remain set for September 1, 2011,
beginning at 9:00 a.m. This hearing is expected to last two days.
It is so ORDERED.
ENTER this 5th day of August, 2011.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2