Opinion
21-CV-7864 (LTS)
09-21-2021
MAUREEN A. BUCKLEY, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Defendant.
ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) requesting immediate injunctive relief. To obtain such relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of her case or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in her favor. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F.3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543, 547 (2000). Preliminary injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“The standards for granting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are identical.” Hernandez Aguilar v. Decker, 482 F.Supp.3d 139, 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Spencer Trask Software & Info. Servs. v. Rpost Int'l, Ltd., 190 F.Supp.2d 577, 580 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)).
Plaintiff filed the motion for a TRO on September 21, 2021, arguing that Defendant has threatened to terminate her employment effective September 22, 2021. “A showing of irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Where there is an adequate remedy at law, such as an award of money damages, injunctions are unavailable except in extraordinary circumstances.” Moore, 409 F.3d at 510; see also Ford v. Reynolds, 316 F.3d 351, 355 (2d Cir. 2003) (“To establish irreparable harm, the injury alleged ‘must be one requiring a remedy of more than mere money damages.'”) (quoting Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F.2d 969, 975 (2d Cir. 1989). Plaintiff's allegation that she is threatened with the loss of employment is insufficient to carry her burden of showing irreparable harm because she makes no showing that the loss of her employment cannot be remedied with money damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 5) is denied.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff's suit cannot proceed until she pays the filing fees or submits a request to proceed in forma pauperis.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 5) is denied.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). Plaintiff consents to electronic service.