Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00934/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00934-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James M Mitchell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Silvia A. Mitchell,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-0934-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff James M. Mitchell's Motion for Preliminary

Injunction. After careful consideration, the motion will be DENIED.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, correctly concluded that the Electronic Communications

Privacy Act of 1985, cited in his Complaint, permits relief in the form of injunctive relief.

However, while the statute allows for injunctive relief, a request for injunctive relief must

be made in accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal

Rules provide that "[n]o preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse

party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). The Rules also provide that in the event that Plaintiff

desires emergency injunctive relief, he must establish by affidavit or verified complaint that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to him before the adverse party

or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition. Moreover, Plaintiff must either provide

notice to the adverse party or must certify to the Court in writing the efforts, if any, which

have been made to give notice or the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be

required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

Case 2:07-cv-00934-SMM Document 4 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiff's motion lacks compliance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for either preliminary or temporary relief because: (1) Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that the adverse party has been served; (2) Plaintiff has not certified to the

Court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice to the adverse party;

(3) Plaintiff has not certified to the Court in writing the reasons supporting the claim that

notice should not be required; and (4) Plaintiff has not establish by affidavit or verified

complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to him before the

adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is

DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00934-SMM Document 4 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2