Eliason et al v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERdenying 18 Motion to Schedule Preliminary Injunction Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 3/30/2020. (jwt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
BRETT L. ELIASON, KYLIE M. ELIASON,
BRITTNIE L. ELIASON, and VERONIQUE
ELIASON,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SCHEDULE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION HEARING

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:20-cv-024-RJS

THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS, et al.,
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Defendant.

This matter is referred to the undersigned from Chief Judge Robert Shelby pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 10.) Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Schedule
a Preliminary Injunction Hearing. (ECF No. 18.) Finding no basis for Plaintiffs’ motion, the
court will deny it as set forth below.
Pro se Plaintiffs Brett Eliason, Kylie Eliason, Brittnie Eliason, and Veronique Eliason
filed this action on February 26, 2020, against Defendants The Corporation of the President of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Kirton McConkie law firm, and over fifty
other individuals. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs assertions include that Defendants have defrauded them
by cutting them off from the Joyce S. Eliason Trust. (ECF No. 2 p. 1-7.) Previously, Chief Judge
Shelby denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Ex Parte Hearing. (ECF No. 7.) Among the reasons for
denying Plaintiffs’ prior motion was a failure by Plaintiffs to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the District of Utah’s local rules. (ECF No. 7 p. 2.) Local Rule 7-1(a)(1)
provides that a motion must include the following:

(A) an initial separate section stating succinctly the precise relief sought and the
specific grounds for the motion; and
(B) one or more additional sections including a recitation of relevant facts,
supporting authority, and argument.
The court stated “Plaintiffs’ Motion does not state the precise relief sought, the specific grounds
for the motion, or provide any supporting authority. Although Plaintiffs recite in the Motion a
litany of grievances against various Defendants, the court is unable to decipher what relief
Plaintiffs seek.” (ECF No. 7 p. 2.)
Even under the liberal construction given Plaintiffs’ pro se Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction Hearing, the court finds it suffers from the same problems. Once again, it contains a
large litany of grievances against various Defendants. For example, “Plaintiff’s attempts to find
relief through the Law Office of Kirton McConkie have resulted in unprecedented hostile actions
which have been ongoing for almost seven years”, (ECF No. 18 p. 5.) and “Kirton McConkie is
merely ‘Road Kill’ at this juncture since they do not even have one single document that
provides them a defense for being the ‘Hell’s Angels’ dressed like Lord’s Lawyers to which I say
‘Hell No am I going to let you boys get away with ‘Estate Planning Murder.’” (ECF No. 18 p.
11.) There are, however, no citations to any supporting authority and no specific grounds
warranting the holding of a hearing.
“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of
the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390,
395 (1981). A plaintiff is eligible for a preliminary injunction only if it establishes the following
four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case; (2) irreparable
injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the
movant outweighs the injury to the other party under the preliminary injunction; and (4) the

2

injunction is not adverse to the public interest. RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1208
(10th Cir.2009); Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Co., LLC v. AT & T Corp., 320 F.3d 1081, 1099
(10th Cir.2003). The right to relief in a preliminary injunction must be “clear and unequivocal
because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy.” AT & T Corp., 320 F.3d at 1081
(citation omitted).
Here there is nothing clear and unequivocal in Plaintiffs’ motion that warrants a
Preliminary Injunction or the need to hold such a hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is
DENIED.

DATED this 30 March 2020.

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

3