Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Spiker v. Spiker

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

December 3, 2019

ROBERT E. SPIKER, Plaintiff,
v.
LANCE E. SPIKER, Defendant.

          ORDER

          MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, United Slates District Judge.

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction (Doc. 10; Motion), filed on December 2, 2019. Plaintiff initiated this case on October 11, 2019, by filing his Civil Complaint Challenging Validity of Last Will and Testament of Celia Anne Baas (Doc. 1; Complaint). Upon review of the Complaint, Plaintiff's claim appears to be premised on his contention that the copy of his mother's will filed in state probate proceedings following her death is invalid and the product of undue influence. See Complaint at 2, 4; see also In re Celia Anne Baas, No. 2019-CP-0590 (Fla. Cir. Ct. filed Sept. 18, 2019). In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court seize “all assets, property, bank accounts, motor vehicles, furniture and any and all properties belonging to” his deceased mother. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff explains that the ownership of this property is in dispute following his mother's death and he needs a “six month seizure” in order to “properly file all necessary documentation needed for this suit.” Id. at 1-2. Upon review, the Motion is due to be denied.

         Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), as well as Local Rule 4.05, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)), govern the entry of a temporary restraining order.[1] Rule 65(b)(1) provides:

         The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damages 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.

         Likewise, Local Rule 4.05(b)(2) requires that the motion be accompanied by affidavits or a verified complaint establishing the threat of irreparable injury as well as showing “that such injury is so imminent that notice and a hearing on the application for preliminary injunction is impractical if not impossible.” In addition, Local Rule 4.05(b)(3) directs that 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), Fed.R.Civ.P.;
(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), Fed. R. Civ. P.; and
(iv) should contain or be accompanied by a supporting legal memorandum or brief.

         Pursuant to Local Rule 4.05(b)(4), the legal memorandum in support of the motion must address four specific factors, including the likelihood of success, the threatened irreparable injury, potential harm to the opposing parties, and the public interest.

         Upon review, the Court finds that the Motion fails to comply with nearly all of the applicable Local Rules. Although the Motion and Complaint do appear to be verified, see Motion at 3; Complaint at 7, Plaintiff does not address how he will be irreparably harmed absent the issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Moreover, to the extent he seeks a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff does not explain why notice and a hearing on the application with all parties present is impractical or impossible. Significantly, the Motion also fails to include a “Memorandum in Support, ” and Plaintiff does not address his likelihood of success on the merits, [2] the irreparable nature of the threatened injury, the potential harm to Defendant, or the public interest, and he fails to cite any legal authority in support of his request for injunctive relief. See Local Rule 4.05(b)(4). Plaintiff also fails to address the bond requirement or provide a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.