United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) filed on May 14, 2018.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's request for
an ex parte temporary restraining order is denied.
14, 2018, Plaintiff Richard Callaghan, a professional figure
skating coach, filed a two-count Complaint (Doc. 1) for
breach of contract (and a simultaneous Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order), alleging that Defendant U.S. Center for
Safe Sport (Safe Sport) violated its own rules and procedures
in investigating grievances filed against Plaintiff by Craig
Maurizi, a competitive figure skater. Based upon Mr.
Maurizi's grievances, in early March of 2018, Safe Sport
initiated an investigation and suspended Plaintiff from
participating in all United States Olympic
Committee-sponsored events and activities pending their
investigation. (Doc. 1, ¶ 22).
course of Safe Sport's investigation, on March 13, 2018,
Safe Sport's external investigator contacted Plaintiff
(and his counsel) and informed them that she wished to
interview Plaintiff. (Doc. 1-12). As the attachments to the
Complaint show, Plaintiff's counsel and Safe Sport's
external investigator have exchanged numerous correspondence
about when the interview would take place - the last exchange
to the Court's knowledge being March 30, 2018. (Docs.
1-13, 1-19, 1-21). In some of these correspondences,
Plaintiff's counsel informed Safe Sport that he believed
Safe Sport was violating certain policies and procedures in
its investigation. (Doc. 1-18). Safe Sport informed Plaintiff
that if he does not participate in the interview scheduled
for May 14, 2018 at noon, the investigation will be closed
and the investigator will make her findings and
recommendations to Safe Sport's Office of Response and
Resolution without Plaintiff's testimony. (Doc. 1, ¶
seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting Safe Sport
and its investigator from interviewing Mr. Callaghan on May
14, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. or from taking any further disciplinary
action against him or imposing additional sanctions until the
Court can hear and decide Plaintiff's application for a
preliminary injunction. As grounds for relief, Plaintiff argues
primarily that he will suffer immediate, irreparable harm to
his ability to earn a living and damage to his personal and
professional reputation if he refuses to be interviewed,
including a potential life-ban from coaching.
obtain a temporary restraining order, a party must first
establish that: i) he is substantially likely to succeed on
the merits of its underlying claims; (2) he will suffer
imminent, irreparable injury without injunctive relief; (3)
such injury outweighs the harm an injunction poses to the
opposing party; and (4) injunctive relief will serve the
public interest. Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v.
Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) authorizes a court to
grant injunctive relief ex parte - that is, against
a party who has not yet received notice of the motion seeking
injunctive relief and/or had an opportunity to be heard. To
obtain such relief, however, the movant must make a
“clear show[ing] that immediate and irreparable
injury, loss, or damage will result . . . before the adverse
party can be heard in opposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b).
The Local Rules of this District state further that an ex
parte order “will be entered only in emergency
cases to maintain the status quo until the requisite notice
may be given and an opportunity is afforded to opposing
parties to respond to the application for a preliminary
injunction.” M.D. Fla. R. 4.05(a). To constitute a true
“emergency, ” the injury alleged must be
“so imminent that notice and a hearing on the
application for preliminary injunction is impractical if not
impossible.” Id. at 4.05(b)(2).
award of ex parte temporary injunctive relief is not
warranted here. According to Plaintiff, he was informed
beginning on March 13, 2018 - two months ago - that Defendant
wished to interview him following his interim suspension.
(Doc. 1-12). And the attachments to the Complaint show that
Safe Sport's last attempt to obtain dates for the
interview from Plaintiff was March 30, 2018. (Doc. 1-21).
Although Plaintiff alleges that Safe Sport has not responded
to his requests for corrective action (Doc. 1, ¶ 44), he
does not explain why he waited to attempt to stop the
interview and investigation less than two hours before
SafeSport's interview. Plaintiff provides no explanation
for this delay. Thus, it appears that the “emergency
nature” of Plaintiff's situation is of his own
making and warrants denial of the request for the
extraordinary ex parte relief that he requests.
Court also notes that the Complaint is a shotgun pleading as
Count II incorporates all preceding paragraphs of the
Complaint. (Doc. 1, ¶ 51). “The typical shotgun
complaint contains several counts, each one incorporating by
reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a
situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but
the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal
conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v.
Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295
(11th Cir. 2002). The Court will therefore dismiss the
Complaint with leave to amend, which may be served on
it is now
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(Doc. 2) is DENIED.
(2) Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed
without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint
within seven (7) days ...