United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
NEGUS KWAME FAHIM ASIEL-DEY, aka, Ronnie-Theodis Demmons Plaintiff,
AUGUSTA MORTGAGE COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and UNRUH INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants.
J. RANDAL HALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a temporary
restraining order, or, in the alternative, a preliminary
injunction. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff claims to challenge a
foreclosure on the grounds that Defendants violated several
federal laws related to debt-collection practices. Based upon
Plaintiff's evidence, however, it appears that Plaintiff
is actually requesting this Court to enjoin the execution of
a dispossessory action successfully brought in state court.
After carefully reviewing Plaintiff's request, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
March 9, 2005, Plaintiff signed a promissory note to Augusta
Mortgage Company and offered as collateral a security deed in
his property at 2907 Arrowwood Circle, Hephzibah, Georgia
30815. On January 5, 2016, Plaintiff received notice that his
house would be auctioned at a foreclosure sale at the
Richmond County Courthouse on February 2, 2016. On January
30, Plaintiff mailed a "Notice of Dispute" to
Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, the company responsible
for handling the foreclosure proceedings on behalf of Wells
Fargo, N.A., the owner of Plaintiff's mortgage. Then, on
February 2, 2016, Unruh Investments, LLC purchased
Plaintiff's property at the Richmond County Courthouse
during legal hours.
foreclosure of Plaintiff's property, however, was not the
end of the story. Plaintiff's documents indicate that he
retained possession of the property as a tenant after
foreclosure. The Court makes this inference based upon the
fact that Unruh Investments, LLC filed a Dispossessory
Affidavit with the Magistrate Court of Richmond County,
Georgia for eviction from the same property on September 1,
2016. Plaintiff includes no further documentation detailing
the proceedings of the dispossessory actions in state court.
filed suit in this Court on February 7, 2017, requesting
various injunctive and statutory relief, including
restraining each Defendant "from commencing any action
against the Consumer for recovery of the property." On
February 9, 2017, at 9:02 a.m. Plaintiff filed a motion for
an emergency temporary restraining order on the basis that he
was to be evicted from his property at 9 a.m. that very
Rule 65(b), a court may issue a temporary restraining order
without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its
attorney only if "specific facts in an affidavit or a
verified complaint clearly show that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. Granting a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction is only proper if the moving party
establishes the following four elements:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is
not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the
harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that
entry of the relief would serve the public interest.
Schmitt v. Reimer, No. 1:10-cv-102, 2010 WL 3585187,
at *1 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2010) (quoting Schiavo v.
Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005)).
temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are
extraordinary remedies that are *not to be granted unless the
movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to
each of the four prerequisites.'"
Id. (quoting Redford v. Gwinnett Jud.
Cir., 350 F.App'x.
341, 345 (11th Cir. 2009)); see also United States v.
Jefferson Cty., 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th Cir. 1983)
("The preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and
drastic remedy not to be granted unless the
movantAclearly carries the burden of
persuasion' as to the four prerequisites."). The
grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is a matter
within the discretion of the district court. Jefferson
Cty., 720 F.2d at 1519.
s request for a temporary restraining order and his request
for an injunction fail for two reasons. First, Plaintiff has
failed to convince this Court that it has jurisdiction to
enjoin Defendants' actions. Second, Plaintiff has not
established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.