Yousif v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Full title: TAYMOOR YOUSIF, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, a foreign…

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

Date published: Nov 10, 2010

CASE NO. 10-11669 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 10, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 10-11669.

November 10, 2010

ORDER

LAWRENCE ZATKOFF, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Docket #12). The facts and legal arguments are adequately set forth in the brief submitted. Therefore, finding that the determination of the issues will not be aided by oral argument, and pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(f)(2), this Court has decided Plaintiff's Motion upon the brief submitted, without oral argument.

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 satisfied, 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 and brief filed in support of Plaintiff's Motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to require this Court to grant Plaintiff's request for a Temporary Restraining Order. There is no likelihood of success on the merits and it is, at best, debatable whether this Court should become involved in a matter that has been (and may continue to be) litigated in state court, where Plaintiff can seek the same relief he seeks here.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2010