Adams v. Deutsche Bank National Trust

Full title: JOHNIE ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Dec 31, 2009

CASE NO. 09-15038 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 31, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO. 09-15038.

December 31, 2009

December 31, 2009

ORDER

LAWRENCE ZATKOFF, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Docket #1), filed on December 30, 2009. The Court has not received any response from Defendant.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A court is to consider the following four factors in determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to a temporary restraining order or other preliminary injunctive relief:

(1) whether the movant has shown a strong or substantial likelihood or probability of success on the merits;

(2) whether the movant has shown that he or she would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary relief is not issued;

(3) whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction will not cause substantial harm to third parties; and

(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Association, Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6^th Cir. 1995); UASCO Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc., 689 F.2d 94, 98 (6^th Cir. 1982); Mason County Med. Ass'n v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256, 261 (6^th Cir. 1977). The standard for preliminary injunction is not a rigid and comprehensive test, and the four factors are to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be satisfield, but instead "these factors simply guide the discretion of the court; they are not meant to be rigid and unbending requirements." In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. 963 F. 2d 855, 859 (6^th Cir. 1992).

II. FINDINGS OF THE COURT

The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's Motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to require this Court to grant Plaintiff's request for a Temporary Restraining Order. In particular, Plaintiff's conclusory analysis fails to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her claim.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Docket #1) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record by electronic or U.S. mail on December 31, 2009.