Shields v. Golden Ticket Getaways, Inc et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying #2 EMERGENCY MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Signed by Judge Nancy F Atlas) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)

Download PDF
Case 4:17-cv-01813 Document 5 Filed in TXSD on 06/16/17 Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JOE SHIELDS, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN TICKET GETAWAYS, INC., et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § June 16, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-1813 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY RELIEF Plaintiff Joe Shields, proceeding pro se, filed this case on June 14, 2017, brings this case complaining that Defendants placed four “robocalls” to Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 277 et seq. (“TCPA”), and other related provisions of law. Defendants have not been served with process and have not appeared in this lawsuit. Contemporaneously with his Complaint, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 2] and a Memorandum [Doc. # 3] in support. Plaintiff’s filings fail to demonstrate any basis for ex parte emergency relief. Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that no preliminary injunction may be issued unless the adverse party has notice. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1). See Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279, 298 (5th Cir. 2012); Harris County, Tex. v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., 177 F.3d P:\ORDERS\11-2017\1813tro.wpd 170616.0907 Case 4:17-cv-01813 Document 5 Filed in TXSD on 06/16/17 Page 2 of 2 306, 325-26 (5th Cir. 1999). “Compliance with Rule 65(a)(1) is mandatory.” Parker v. Ryan, 960 F.2d 543, 544 (5th Cir. 1992). A temporary restraining order may be granted without notice 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” and “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1). Plaintiff’s filings fail to allege facts satisfying either requirement of Rule 65(b)(1). Although the TCPA authorizes certain injunctive relief in a private suit, see 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), this provision does not authorize emergency ex parte relief. If, in a later stage of this lawsuit, Plaintiff establishes that Defendants have violated the TCPA, he may pursue his request for injunctive relief as appropriate. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 2] is DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 16th day of June, 2017. NAN Y F. ATLAS SENIOR UNI STATES DISTRICT JUDGE P:\ORDERS\11-2017\1813tro.wpd 170616.0907 2

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?