United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Athens Division
AMENDED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff Sugar Valley Capital Partners,
LLC's Emergency Request for Hearing on Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and for Extension of Temporary
Restraining Order Through and Including the Date of Hearing
[Doc. 5]. Upon consideration, the Motion is
originally filed this action in the Superior Court of Greene
County on June 11, 2018. The next day, on June 12, the
Superior Court entered an order temporarily restraining (1)
Defendant UMB Bank, N.A. (“Trustee”) from
registering any transfer of the Greene County Development
Authority Junior Subordinated Taxable Revenue Bonds (Glen-I,
LLC Project), Series 2015C, in the principal amount of $4,
600, 000 (the “Series 2015C Bonds”); (2)
Defendant Safe Harbor Equity Distressed Debt Fund 1, L.P.
(“Safe Harbor”) from any collection, enforcement,
or disposition relating in any way to the Series 2015C Bonds;
and (3) both Defendants from effecting the purported transfer
of the Series 2015C Bonds to Safe Harbor or any other
transfer of the Series 2015C Bonds. That Order expires on
July 12, 2018. Two days prior to the expiration of that
order, on July 10, 2018, Defendants removed the case to this
Court. The next day, on July 11, Plaintiff filed this Motion
seeking an extension of the temporary restraining order until
a hearing can be scheduled in this Court.
a court will grant a motion for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”), the moving party must establish that (1)
it has a substantial success of likelihood on the merits; (2)
it will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is not
granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm the
relief may inflict on the nonmoving party; and (4) entry of
relief “would not be adverse to the public
interest.” The Court is authorized to grant
extraordinary injunctive relief provided by a TRO only if the
high standards for such relief have been met. A TRO or
preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy used primarily to
preserve the status quo rather than to grant most or all of
the substantive relief sought in the complaint.
careful consideration, the Court finds a sufficient basis to
issue a TRO until the hearing on the preliminary injunction
scheduled for July 26, 2018. Plaintiff has established a
sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to preserve
the status quo at this time. Moreover, monetary relief would
be insufficient under the circumstances here due to the
potential for immediate and irreparable loss of interests in
real property, thereby causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff.
Thus, the Court finds the conditions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 have
been sufficiently met.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Trustee
is TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED through July 26,
2018, from registering any transfer of the Series 2015C Bonds
and from taking any direction from a holder or purported
holder of the Series 2015C Bonds with respect to the Series
2015C Bonds. Defendant Safe Harbor is TEMPORARILY
RESTRAINED through July 26, 2018, from any
collection, enforcement, or disposition relating in any way
to the Series 2015C Bonds. Defendants are TEMPORARILY
RESTRAINED through July 26, 2018, from effecting the
purported transfer of the Series 2015C Bonds to Safe Harbor
or any other transfer of the Series 2015C Bonds. Plaintiff is
TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED through July 26,
2018, from directing the Trustee to take any action with
respect to the Series 2015C Bonds.
Court will hold a hearing on Thursday, July 26, 2018,
at 9:30 AM in Courtroom D of the William A. Bootle
Federal Building in Macon, Georgia to fully
address Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Defendants are DIRECTED to file a response
to Plaintiff's Motion on or before July 19,
2018, in accordance with the Court's July 12,
2018 Order [Doc. 8]. Plaintiff may file a reply no later than
5 pm, July 24, 2018.
 Plaintiff also filed a motion to
extend the temporary restraining order in the Superior Court
before Defendants removed the case here.
 KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of
Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1268 (11th Cir.
See Siegel v. LePore, 234
F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (injunctive relief is
“an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted
unless the movant clearly established the ‘burden of
persuasion' as ...