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)

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