UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-62226-BLOOM/Valle

JORGE LUIS SEGUARA-OCANA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

LIZANO AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC,

d/b/a/ SUNSHINE MOTORS, and

EDGAR C. PERDOMO,

Defendants.

______/ 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Renewed Ex-Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. [12] (“Motion for TRO”), filed on January 13, 2023, and 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time, ECF No. [13] (“Motion for Enlargement”), filed on 

January 13, 2023. The Court has reviewed both Motions, the record as a whole, and the applicable 

law. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are denied. 

 In the Motion for TRO, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order requiring Defendants 

“to preserve all existing accounts,” to prevent Defendants from transferring money to “avoid the 

reach and application of [Plaintiff] and hide and secrete the theft it committed.” Id. at 4-5. 

Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion is deficient in numerous respects. First, it is unaccompanied by 

“specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can he heard 

in opposition[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Second, it lacks a certification from Plaintiff’s 

Case 0:22-cv-62226-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-62226-BLOOM/Valle

2

attorney. Id. at 65(b)(1)(B). Third, Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed order. S.D. Fla. L.R. 

7.1(a)(2). Any of these reasons would be sufficient to deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice. 

However, apart from the procedural issues, Plaintiff’s Motion is also substantively 

deficient. The Motion contains a single sentence addressing the risk of irreparable harm to Plaintiff 

absent a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): “Regarding the risk of irreparable harm, the 

dealership defendants are foreigners and can flee the country at any time.” ECF No. [12] at 4. An 

allegation that Defendants are “foreigners” is insufficient to show that a TRO is appropriate. 

Moreover, the allegation is contradicted by the Second Amended Complaint, which states that all 

Defendants are citizens of the State of Florida. ECF No. [9] at 3.

As for the Motion for Enlargement, Plaintiff seeks an additional 60 days to serve 

Defendants. ECF No. [13]. Plaintiff argues the extra time is necessary for the Court to have 

sufficient time to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO prior to expiration of the service deadline. Id. 

Given that the Court has denied Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO, Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement is 

arguably moot. To the extent it is not moot, it is denied for failure to show good cause to extend 

90-day service deadline provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [12], is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time, ECF No. [13], is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 13, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:22-cv-62226-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-62226-BLOOM/Valle

3

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 0:22-cv-62226-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 3 of 3