Buy This Entire Record For
Grant v. Seusy
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
September 19, 2019
NANCY GRANT, Plaintiff,
PAUL SEUSY, ASHLEY SCHLICK, BENJAMIN W. HARDIN, JR., CHARLOTTE L. ALLEN, CONTRACTOR SERVICES 1, L.L.C., DANIEL A. FOX, DAVID CARLTON, DITECH HOLDING CORPORATION, DON T. HALL, ERIKA QUARTERMAINE, JAMES F. POTTER, JAMES S. PARKER, KENNETH HANCOCK, KIM WILSON CHERAZ, KIMBERLY CARLTON BONNER, LEE E. HAWORTH, LON AREND, MARK F. NEGLEY, MICHAEL RUFF, MICHAEL SAVAGE, RICHARD D. CONFLITTI, ROBERT B. BENNETT, RODNEY SHIELDS, RONNIE DEAN ALLEN, SHERRY STRUB-GUESS, STEPHEN M. WALKER, SUSAN GERMAN WRIGHT, VERNON L. KEEN and VINCE SICA, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Nancy Grant’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2), requesting a
temporary restraining order “against the entire 12th
judicial circuit and any of its officers conducting business
in its jurisdiction that involve Plaintiff Grant and her
children, including the DeSoto County Sheriff’s Office
to prohibit further retaliation from occurring against
Plaintiff and her children.”
grant of a preliminary injunction in advance of trial is an
extraordinary remedy.” McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic
Found. Police Dept., 455 Fed.Appx. 874, 878 (11th Cir.
2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted). In addition
to the usual requirements for injunctive relief, a district
court may issue an ex parte temporary restraining
only if (A) 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 (B) 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). This Court’s Local Rules
establish additional requirements for any request for a
temporary restraining order, including:
(2) The motion must be supported by allegations of specific
facts shown in the verified complaint or accompanying
affidavits, not only that the moving party is threatened with
irreparable injury, but that such injury is so imminent that
notice and a hearing on the application for preliminary
injunction is impractical if not impossible.
(3) The motion should also: (i) describe precisely the
conduct sought to be enjoined; (ii) set forth facts on which
the Court can make a reasoned determination as to the amount
of security which must be posted pursuant to
Rule 65(c); (iii) be accompanied by a proposed form
of temporary restraining order prepared in strict accordance
with the several requirements contained in Rule 65(b) and
(d); and (iv) should contain or be accompanied by a
supporting legal memorandum or brief.
(4) The brief or legal memorandum submitted in support of the
motion must address the following issues: (i) the likelihood
that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits
of the claim; (ii) the irreparable nature of the threatened
injury and the reason that notice cannot be given; (iii) the
potential harm that might be caused to the opposing parties
or others if the order is issued; and (iv) the public
interest, if any.
Local Rule 4.05(b).
one-page Motion seeks unreasonably broad and vague injunctive
relief without satisfying any of the requirements listed in
it is now
Nancy Grant’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(Doc. 2) is DENIED.