Carl Joseph Fulmer v. EZ Auto, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied Carl Joseph Fulmer’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to prevent repossession of his 2015 Subaru Forester. The court held that no preliminary injunction could issue without notice to the defendants and that Fulmer failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(B) by explaining why notice should not be required for an ex parte TRO.

Holdings

1. The court could not issue a preliminary injunction because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) requires notice to the adverse party.
2. The court could not grant an ex parte temporary restraining order because Fulmer failed to provide reasons why notice should not be required, as required by Rule 65(b)(1)(B).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could issue a preliminary injunction without notice to the adverse parties.
2. Whether the court could issue an ex parte temporary restraining order when the movant failed to provide specific reasons why notice should not be required.

Disposition

other