Emrit v. VEVO, LLC et al
Filing
37
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 28) and motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 35) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 12/28/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
)
)
v.
)
)
VEVO, LLC, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, )
WARNER MUSIC GROUP, INC.
)
and BLUE2DIGTIAL, INC.
)
NO:
3:15-0970
TO: Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order entered October 9, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 8), the Court referred this pro se action
to the Magistrate Judge to enter a scheduling order for management of the case, to dispose or
recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to
conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and the Local Rules of Court.
Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis on September 8, 2015, against four defendants
based on various state law claims. Process was issued on October 9, 2015, see Docket Entry No. 9,
and only Defendant Sony Music Entertainment, who has recently filed a motion to dismiss, has been
served with process. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed multiple motions, two of which are a
motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 28) and a motion for summary judgment
(Docket Entry No. 35). Both motions lack merit and should be denied.
Preliminary injunctions are governed by Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and are considered preventive, prohibitory, or protective measures taken pending resolution on the
merits. See Clemons v. Board of Educ., 228 F.2d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 1956). Preliminary injunctions
are considered extraordinary relief. Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass’n v. Detroit Typographical
Union No. 18, Int’l Typographical Union, 471 F.2d 872, 876 (6th Cir. 1972). Plaintiff, as the
moving party, has the burden of proving that the circumstances “clearly demand” a preliminary
injunction. Overstreet v. Lexington–Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002).
He has not met this burden. He has not supported his motion with any type of affirmative evidence,
has not shown that any factors weigh in favor of his request for a preliminary injunction. See Granny
Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 441, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). McNeilly
v. Land, 684 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012); Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d. 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000);
Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. CAFCOMP Systems, 119 F.3d 393, 401 (6th Cir. 1997) Parker v.
U.S. Dep’t of Agric. 879 F.2d. 1362, 1367 (6th Cir. 1989); Mason Cnty Med. Assocs. v. Knebel, 563
F.2d 256, 261 (6th Cir. 1977).
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is likewise unsupported by any affirmative
evidence, and Plaintiff has made absolutely no showing that genuine issues of material fact do not
exist and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion is premature given the procedural posture of this case, and
also fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 56.01(b).
RECOMMENDATION
The Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction
(Docket Entry No. 28) and motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 35) be DENIED.
2
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice and must state with particularity the specific
portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. Failure to file written
objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's
Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466,
88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Respectfully submitted,
BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?