UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-0810-P

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) which contains 

an Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), 

filed on September 13, 2022. Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin 

Defendant’s expulsion of Plaintiffs from its electronic filing system for 

tax returns and order Defendant to reinstate Plaintiffs’ associated filing 

and transmitter identification numbers. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ 

request and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the request for

a TRO should be, and is hereby, DENIED. 

Temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary relief and rarely 

issued.” Albright v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.Supp.2d 523, 532 (E.D.

La. 1999). Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs 

injunctions and restraining orders. Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO does not 

specify whether they wish to proceed ex parte, or whether notice has 

been provided to Defendant. Therefore, the Court considers both 

avenues in turn. 

Insofar as Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court grant an ex parte 

TRO, they have completely failed to discuss the issue of notice. Under 

Rule 65(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may issue 

a TRO without notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if both of 

the following requirements are met:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly 

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage 

Case 4:22-cv-00810-P Document 6 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 62
2

will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 

in opposition; and

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to 

give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A)–(B). Plaintiffs fail to certify via writing any of 

the efforts made to give notice to Defendant outside of filing proof of 

service of process. See ECF No. 5. In addition, given that Plaintiffs’ 

request for a TRO is buried within their Complaint, the proof of service 

of process is not particularized to the degree that would put Defendant 

on notice as to Plaintiffs’ request for immediate injunctive relief. See id.

Plaintiffs also fail to explain the reasons why notice should not be 

required given the circumstances of this case. The Court therefore 

concludes that Plaintiffs’ request for an ex parte TRO fails to meet the 

requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)(B).

In the alternative, if Plaintiffs are not seeking ex parte relief from 

the Court, they have failed to meet the requirements of a TRO. For a 

district court to grant a request for a TRO, a plaintiff must show: (1) a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat 

that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the request is denied, 

(3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction 

might cause the defendant, and (4) that the injunction will not disserve 

the public interest. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 

448, 452 (5th Cir. 2014). When considering the degree of threat that the 

movant faces, a presently existing actual threat must be shown. United 

States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 262 (5th Cir. 2001). The court cannot 

grant a request for injunctive relief “to prevent the possibility of some 

remote future injury” Id. 

Plaintiffs allege two distinct threats of future injury if the Court were 

to deny their request for a TRO—a loss of business and reputational 

damage. Both are woefully inadequate as grounds to satisfy the second 

requirement for a TRO. First, Plaintiffs allege that they “cannot conduct 

business” based on the Defendant’s conduct. See Pl.’s Compl., ¶ 172. But 

such a conclusory, perfunctory allegation of a loss of business falls well 

short of a particularized threat that would warrant immediate 

injunctive relief. See Elite Med. Lab’y Sols., LLC v. Becerra, No. 2:22-

Case 4:22-cv-00810-P Document 6 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 63
3

CV-133-Z, 2022 WL 2704041, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 11, 2022) 

(Kacsmaryk, J.) (stating that “irreparable harm is harm for which there 

is no adequate remedy at law.”) Second, Plaintiffs contend that 

Defendant’s publishing of its conduct via the Internal Revenue Bulletin 

will harm Plaintiffs’ interest in their reputation. See Pl.’s Compl., ¶172. 

However, speculative injury is not sufficient—there must be more than 

an unfounded fear on the part of the movant. Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. 

Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985). The mere possibility 

that Plaintiffs’ reputation will be harmed by Defendant’s “stigmatizing 

allegations” is simply not a substantial threat of irreparable harm. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO fails 

to satisfy the second requirement of obtaining a TRO. The Court need 

not address whether Plaintiffs have met their burden with respect to the 

remaining requirements for injunctive relief. 

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on this 14th day of September 2022.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00810-P Document 6 Filed 09/14/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 64