Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied without prejudice Brunswick Exinor's verified motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to halt foreclosure proceedings. The court treated the motion as seeking preliminary injunctive relief and concluded that Exinor had not established the required likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or lack of an adequate legal remedy, particularly because jurisdiction had not been established and the defendant had not been served. The court permitted Exinor to file an amended complaint by January 5, 2026.
Holdings
- Because the requested relief sought to restrain foreclosure during the pendency of the action and could extend beyond the fourteen-day limit for a temporary restraining order, the motion was better understood and evaluated as a motion for preliminary injunction.
- Exinor failed to establish the threshold requirements for preliminary injunctive relief because she had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, or the absence of an adequate remedy at law.
- The motion was premature and had to be denied without prejudice because federal jurisdiction had not been determined, no amended complaint had been filed, and the defendant had not been served.
- The court previously determined that most claims relating to the state foreclosure case and judgment appeared barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which precludes lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over claims seeking review of state-court judgments or claims inextricably intertwined with those judgments.
Questions Presented
- Whether the motion styled as a temporary restraining order should be evaluated as a motion for preliminary injunction.
- Whether Exinor established the threshold requirements for preliminary injunctive relief.
- Whether the motion was premature because federal jurisdiction had not been established, no amended complaint had been filed, and the defendant had not been served.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- International Profit Associates, Inc. v. Paisola, 461 F. Supp. 2d 672, 675 (N.D. Ill. 2006)(followed)
- Decker v. Lammer, 2022 WL 135429, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 14, 2022)(followed)
- Turnell v. Centimark Corp., 796 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Speech First, Inc. v. Killen, 968 F.3d 628, 637 (7th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Orr v. Shicker, 953 F.3d 490, 501 (7th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Remer v. Burlington Area School District, 205 F.3d 990, 996 (7th Cir. 2000)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…