Opinion
Index 23CIV05016 (NSR)
10-11-2024
JAMIE HODGES, Plaintiff, v. MCGOUGH ENTERPRISES LLC, individually and d/b/a MCGOUGH ACADEMY, and MEAGAN MCGOUGH, individually, Defendants.
URGENT MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND GAG ORDER
NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Jamie Hodges, respectfully moves this Court for an order granting an immediate injunction against the defendant, Meagan McGough, to prevent her from engaging in any direct or indirect contact with the plaintiff, the plaintiff's family members, or third parties regarding the ongoing litigation in this matter.
In support of this motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
1. On October 9, 2023, the defendant, Meagan McGough, sent a message to Plaintiff's mother, which was insulting, harassing, and personally degrading to both the Plaintiff and his mother. This communication constitutes harassment under New York law. The court in People v. Shack (86 N.Y.2d 529, 1995) held that repeated, unwanted communications with the intent to harass or annoy can be sufficient to justify injunctive relief. Defendant's actions clearly demonstrate an intent to intimidate and cause emotional distress. This is found at Exhibit 1 below.
2. Defendant has engaged in a pattern of defamatory conduct. Through her ‘anonymous' Instagram account under the handle 'tattle_trebles,' McGough has made false and defamatory statements about the Plaintiff and other individuals, specifically with the intent to damage Plaintiff's reputation. This included posting of an email from previous counsel of which only her and plaintiff were in receipt of. This private (and privileged) email was posted with the defendant knowing the judgement was overturned on appeal. They were also aware that this same woman was found guilty of defamation, with it also deliberately misconstruing how counsel was outlining the worst case scenario in this, and was posted to make it appear that it was a fact. Under Rosenberg v. MetLife, Inc. (8 N.Y.3d 359, 2007), New York courts have held that defamatory statements made in bad faith and with malicious intent can support claims for injunctive relief. This post is found in Exhibit 2 below.
3. The ongoing harassment through both direct messages and defamatory public statements constitutes an abuse of process and an attempt to interfere with the legal proceedings in this matter. In Murry v. Gelber (870 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2008), the court granted an injunction to prevent further harassment and public defamation, recognizing that such actions have the potential to significantly prejudice court proceedings.
4. Plaintiff further requests that the Court issue an immediate order enjoining the Defendant from contacting Plaintiff, Plaintiff's family members, or third parties regarding the case, directly or indirectly, and from making any public statements, including on social media, which are intended to defame, harass, or otherwise damage the Plaintiff.
5. Courts have routinely granted injunctive relief in cases where there is a clear pattern of harassing or defamatory behavior, particularly where the conduct is intended to disrupt court proceedings or cause emotional harm. In People v. Louis (9 A.D.3d 725, 2004), the court acknowledged the need for injunctions to prevent ongoing harassment and protect the integrity of the legal process.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court immediately grant:
A. An immediate injunction against Defendant, prohibiting all forms of direct or indirect contact with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's family, or third parties regarding the litigation;
B. A gag order preventing Defendant from making public or private statements regarding this case on any platform;
C. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Pro se Plaintiff's application for a Temporary-Restraining Order is denied without prejudice to renew due to pro se Plaintiff's failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail a copy of this Endorsement to the pro se Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF, to show service on the docket, and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 54.
SO ORDERED.
(Exhibit 1 Omitted)