Opinion
Case No: 8:06-cv-183-T-26EAJ.
February 6, 2006
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner's Amended Petition for Temporary Restraining Order seeking the issuance of an order restraining the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, from conducting a foreclosure sale of her interest in certain property. Petitioner's initial attempt to receive such relief was rebuffed by this Court because she had failed to satisfy the first prong (likelihood of success on the merits) of the four-factor test which all petitioner's must satisfy before securing entitlement to injunctive relief. See docket 6.
In her latest foray, Petitioner fares no better because she wholly fails to argue in any meaningful way why she qualifies to be the recipient of injunctive relief under the standard test governing the issuance of an injunction. That is, Petitioner has failed to argue, much less prove, why there is a substantial likelihood of her succeeding on the merits, why she will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, why the threatened injury to her outweighs the harm an injunction may cause Respondents, and why granting the injunction would not disserve the public interest. See Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F. 3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 2001). Absent such proof, Petitioner is not entitled to injunctive relief. Id.
Accordingly, the Amended Petition for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 7) is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED.