IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

CORNELIUS CAMPBELL 

BURGESS,

§

§

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00100-O

§

FEDERAL DEPOSIT 

INSURANCE CORPORATION,

et al., 

§

§

§

§

 Defendants. §

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On November 26, 2022, the Court issued a Notice to the Parties to inform them of its plan 

to advance the trial on the merits under Federal Rule 65(a)(2) and to invite any objections the 

Parties may have regarding that plan of action.1 Having read Defendants’ Objection2to the Court’s 

Order, the Court hereby DECLINES to advance the trial on the merits under Federal Rule 

65(a)(2). 

Further, in response to the Court’s prior Order3granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration.4 Having read the Parties’ briefing 

regarding Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration,5as well as the relevant caselaw, the Court 

finds that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration should be, and is, hereby DENIED. 

Therefore, the Court’s finding in its prior November 6, 2022 Order stands – Plaintiff has 

satisfied the requirements and is entitled to a preliminary injunction as to his claim under the 

1 Order, ECF No. 41. 

2 Objection, ECF No. 46. 

3 Order, ECF No. 31. 

4 Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 34. 

5 See Pl. Resp., ECF No. 37; Defs. Reply, ECF No. 38; Pl. Sur-Reply, ECF No. 39-1.

Case 7:22-cv-00100-O Document 49 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 801
Seventh Amendment.6

In the November 6 Order, the Court ordered the Parties to brief the 

appropriate scope of relief.

7 Both parties filed briefing as to the scope of the injunction.8 Having 

read the briefing and the pertinent caselaw, the issue is ripe for decision. 

Plaintiff requests the following injunction from the Court:

Pending further order of this Court, Defendants are hereby enjoined from taking 

any further action in the administrative enforcement proceeding styled In re 

Cornelius Campbell Burgess et al. (Nos. FDIC-14-0307e, FDIC 140-0308k) (the 

“Enforcement Proceeding”). Absent future authorization from this Court, the 

Defendants are enjoined from: 

• entering any Final Decision in the Enforcement Proceeding, pursuant to 12 

U.S.C. § 1818 or 12 C.F.R. § 308.40(c);

• acting on any motions or requests filed by the parties to the Enforcement 

Proceeding, including but not limited to motions filed under 12 C.F.R. § 

308.23(c), such as the FDIC’s recent motion seeking leave to file a response 

to the Exceptions that Burgess has filed in the Enforcement Proceeding;

• transmitting the record of the Enforcement Proceeding to the FDIC’s Board 

of Directors, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 308.40(a); or

• otherwise continuing the Enforcement Proceeding in any way.

Pending further order of this Court, Defendants are also enjoined from taking any 

other action against Burgess that relies in any way on the record in the Enforcement 

Proceeding, including but not limited to evidence adduced or determinations, 

rulings, or recommendations rendered as part of that proceeding.9

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s proposed injunction is overbroad and vague, and that the 

injunction should be narrowly tailored to enjoining Defendants from “entering any Final Decision 

in the Enforcement Proceeding, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1818 or 12 C.F.R. § 308.40(c).”10

Defendants contend the injunction should be limited to enjoining the FDIC Board from rendering 

a final decision in solely these legal claims imposing civil monetary penalties against Plaintiff as 

6 See Order 24, ECF No. 31. 

7

Id.

8 See Pl. Brief, ECF No. 32; Defs. Resp. and Obj., ECF No. 33; Pl. Resp., ECF No. 37; Defs. Reply, ECF 

No. 38; Pl. Sur-Reply, ECF No. 39-1.

9 Pl. Brief 3–4, ECF No. 32. 

10 Defs. Resp. and Obj. 11–13, ECF No. 33.

Case 7:22-cv-00100-O Document 49 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 802
the Court found that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial applied only to those claims for 

civil monetary penalties.11

The Fifth Circuit has said that a preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad if it is 

not “narrowly tailored to remedy the specific action which gives rise to the order” as determined 

by the substantive law at issue. Scott v. Schedler, 826 F.3d 207, 211 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Doe 

v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 818 (5th Cir. 2004)). Thus, Defendants are correct that the injunction

must be narrowly tailored to remedy the Seventh Amendment issue. However, the Fifth Circuit in 

Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission held that the Seventh Amendment applies to 

proceedings that involve a mix of equitable and legal claims, stating “the facts relevant to the legal 

claims should be adjudicated by a jury, even if those facts relate to equitable claims too.” 34 F.4th 

446, 455 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 537–38 (1970)). In this case, the 

FDIC’s claims against Plaintiff depend on the same underlying facts. Therefore, in accordance 

with Jarkesy, Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial as to the entire shared body of overlapping issues, 

rendering the whole Enforcement Proceeding unconstitutional. 

As the entire Enforcement Proceeding is unconstitutional, the Court finds it must enjoin 

the entire Enforcement Proceeding. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s requested injunctive 

relief.12 The Court ORDERS as follows: 

Pending further order involving this case, Defendants are hereby enjoined from taking any 

further action in the administrative enforcement proceeding styled In re Cornelius Campbell 

Burgess et al. (Nos. FDIC-14-0307e, FDIC 140-0308k) (the “Enforcement Proceeding”). 

Defendants are therefore enjoined from: 

11 Id.

12 Pl. Brief 3–4, ECF No. 32.

Case 7:22-cv-00100-O Document 49 Filed 12/01/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 803
• entering any Final Decision in the Enforcement Proceeding, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1818 

or 12 C.F.R. § 308.40(c);

• acting on any motions or requests filed by the parties to the Enforcement Proceeding, 

including but not limited to motions filed under 12 C.F.R. § 308.23(c), such as the FDIC’s 

recent motion seeking leave to file a response to the Exceptions that Burgess has filed in 

the Enforcement Proceeding;

• transmitting the record of the Enforcement Proceeding to the FDIC’s Board of Directors, 

pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 308.40(a); or

• otherwise continuing the Enforcement Proceeding in any way.

Pending further order of this Court, Defendants are also enjoined from taking any other action 

against Burgess that relies in any way on the record in the Enforcement Proceeding, including but 

not limited to evidence adduced or determinations, rulings, or recommendations rendered as part 

of that proceeding.

Finally, Burgess shall post a security in the amount of $1,000 to pay any costs or damages that 

occur should this injunction prove to be wrong.

SO ORDERED on this 1st day of December, 2022.

Case 7:22-cv-00100-O Document 49 Filed 12/01/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 804