Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, th e co urt has determined that this o pinion should * not be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5.4. 1 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20718
ANT HONYG. P ET RE L L O P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. R A HUL NA T H; US HANA T H D efen da n t s- A pp el l an t s

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V
- 1933
B ef ore W IE N E R , G A R Z A , E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg e: * D e fe nda nt s - Appe l l ant s D r . Rahul N ath and U s ha N at h ( s i ngl y and col l ect i vel y, “ N ath”) app ealt h e gran tof a prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on barri n g t h em f rom m ak i n g an y cha n ges t o t h e r e siden ce t h at t h ey recentl y pu rchased fr om M at t hew Pruc ka ( “ Prucka” ) i n H ous t on, Texas f or$8. 3 m i l l i on. Fol l ow i ng an United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2

O c t obe r200 8 h e a r i ng, t he di st r i c tc our tgr ant ed t hat i nj unct i on w i t hout f i ndi ngs of factor concl u si on s of l aw . Th e i nj u n ct i on w as gran t ed i n a sui tt h at had been f i l ed i n st ate c ou rtby P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l an tA n t h on y P et rel l o (“ P et rel l o” ) against P r u c k a fo rb r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t a n d w a s la te ra m e n d e d t o a d d , in tera lia , a f ede r al ho us i ng di s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m r e l at i ng t o t he sa l e of P r uc ka ’ s H o us t o n ho m e ( “ t he H o m e ” ) t o N at h. As t he H o m e ’ s pur c has e r , N at h s ubs e que nt l y i nt e r ve ne d i n t he p en d i n g law su i t an d i s n ow a d efen d a n t. P etrell o claim s th a t P ru ck a refu sed to sell th e H om e t o him b eca u se P ru ck a d i d n ot w a n t i t to b e a lte r e d to
a ccom m od a te P et r e llo’ s d i sa b l ed da u gh ter. P etrell o a l so claim s th a t N a th conspir ed w i t h P rucka to a chi eve t h at en d aft er N ath h ad si gn ed the pu rchase contract . P et rel l o sough tt h e i nj u n ct i on t o bar N ath f rom m ak i n g an y cha n ges t o t he ho m e dur i ng t he l awsui t ’ s pe nde nc y. A f t er t he i nj unc t i o n was g r ant e d, N a th ap p ea l ed
. W e v a ca te the i nj u n cti on an d rem a n d to t h e d i stri ct cou rt. I
. F AC T S A ND P RO CE ED I NGS P r u c k a o w n e d th e H o m e , w h ic h is lo c a te d a t 8 R e m in g to n L a n e in H ou ston , T ex a s. P etrell o, w h o live s at 1 0 R em i n gto n L a n e, w a s P ru ck a ’ s n ex tdoo rnei ghbor
. Pet r el l o has a y oung daught er , C ar ena, w ho s uf fer s f r om c er ebr al pa l s y a n d i s s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d
. Pe t r e l l o m a i n t a i n s t h a t h e s o u g h t t o b u y t he H om e nex t
- door t o h i s ow n t o provi de C aren a a place t o l i ve w i t h her caret ak ers
w h en s he m at ur e d. W he n he di s c o ve r e d t hatPr uc ka w as m o vi ng t o U t ah,3

P etrell o ca l l ed P ru ck a an d off ere d $6
. 5 m i llio n fo r th e H om e. P etrell o a sse rts t h at, al t h ou gh P rucka decl i n ed the of fer, he oral l y gran t ed P et re l l o a ri gh tof f i rstr ef u salon the H om e (t h e “ R i gh tof R ef u salA greem en t ” )
. Petrel l o al l eges speci f i cal l y t h at Pru cka ag reed t o perm i tP et rel l o t o m e e t o r bet t er any of fer P ru ck a rece i ve d
. P ru ck a d i sp u tes th i s, a sse rti n g i n stea d th a t h e a gr ee d on l y to keep P et rel l o i n f

orm ed so t h at he coul d m ak e a equ alof h igh e r o ffer i f

he so
c h o s e . S om e t i m e af

t er Petrel l o’ s $6. 5 m i l l i on of fer w a s d e cl i n ed, P rucka l i st ed t he pr o pe r t y f

o r$ 8. 29 9 m i l l i o n. The l i s t i ng ag r e e m e ntc o nt ai ne d a s t at e m e nt t hat no p e r s o n h a d a r i g h t o f r e f u s a l t o b u y t h e p r o p e r t y . Na t h i n i t i a l l y m ad e a $7. 6 m i l l i on o f

fert hat c ont ai ned som e con t i ngenci es . Pruc ka dec l i ned t hat of fert oo , buthe i nf

or m ed Pet r el l o t hat an of ferapproac hi ng t he as ki ng pr i c e had been m ad e. I n res pon se, P et rel l o i n creased hi s of fer to $ 8. 2 m i l l i on , w h i ch
e xc l ude d a b r o ke r ag e - fe e a nd t he r e f o r e w o ul d ha ve ne t t e d Pr uc ka m o r e t han a full -p r ic e off

er from an y th i rd -pa rty. P ru ck a the n call ed N a th , w h o a gr ee d to pa y t h e f

u l ll i st ed p ri ce of

$8. 299 m i l l i o n . N a th an d P rucka si gn ed a con t ract ( t h e “ P u r c h a s e C o n t r a c t ” ) o n D e c e mb e r 5 , 2 0 0 7 f o rt h e l i s t e d p r i c e , a tw h i c h t i me N a t h p a i d P r u c k a $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 i n e a r n e s tmo n e y . I ti s u n d i s p u t e d t h a ta tt h e t i me t h e P u rchase C on t ractw as si gn ed an d t h e $ 75, 000 w as p ai d, N ath did not know P e tr e llo a n d h a d n o k n o w le d g e o f h is o ffe rto P r u c k a .Therec ord doe s not re fle ct that any pa rt y ever q ue stione d f

e deral juri sdiction. Thereis 1 no question about the jurisdictional appropriateness of the district court adjudicatingthe federal law claims in this suit. And there is no question that we have federal jurisdiction over the matter 4 P et rel l o al l eged l y contact ed N ath tw o day s af t e r th e P u rchase C on t ract
w a s si gn ed , ask i n g to b u y th e H om e from h i m an d oth erw i se a ttem p ti n g to
c o nvi nc e N at h no tt o g o throu gh w i t h t he pur c has e . Bei ng unab l e t o b uy t he H om e or in te rrupt i t s s al e t o N ath, P et rel l o sued P rucka i n st ate c ou rton D ecem ber 11, 200 7, adv an ci n g vari ou s s t ate l a w c la im s, i n cl u di n g breach of
c ont r ac tand unj ustenr i c hm ent , f oral l ege dl y br eac hi ng t he R i ght of R ef usal A g re e m e n t. H e a lso filed a n o tice of l i s pe nde ns a g a in s t th e H o m e in th e H a r r is C ou n ty, T ex a s, C l erk ’ s off i ce. N a th w a s n ot n a m e d in origi n a lcom p l a i n t. Bec aus e o f

t he pe nd i n gl a ws ui t , N at h a nd Pr uc ka s i gne d a s i de a gr e e m e ntl ay i ng
ou thow t h e parti es w ou l d ad dress t h e P et rel l o l i t i gati on an d w h at w ou l d h appen i f Pet r el l o pr evai l ed. N at h cl os ed o n t he H om e o n January 1 6, 2008. Pet r el l o i ni t i al l y s ued onl y Pruc ka and s ou gh t on l y r el i ef f ors t at e l aw
ca u ses of a cti on . E ig h t d a ys after h i s p u rch a se o f th e H om e in J a n u a ry , N a th i n t ervened i n t h e st ate c ou rtsui t . I n Ju n e, P et rel l o f i l ed h i s Fou rt h A m en ded Co m p l a i n ta l l e g i n gfe d e r a lc l a i ms u n d e rt h e F a i rHo u s i n gAc t( “ FHA” ) , 4 2 U. S
. C. § 3 601 et s e q. , an d u n der 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1985 ( 3) an d 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1343
. A l m ost i m m e di at e l y t he r e af

t e r , t he D e f

e ndant- A pp el l an t s r em oved t h e enti re c as e t o t he U
. S
. D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas. 1before us, namely the district court’s grant of injunctive relief under F ED . R. C IV . P. 52(a)
. However, our review of

the record raises a serious question under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)whether federal su pp lemental juri sdiction over t heplaintif

f’ s statelaw claimsis a

ppropriate . F irst,it i s not c le ar t hat thedistrict c ourt au tom aticall ytakes jurisdiction over all state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) if the de fenda nt who seeks removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only

does so under that authority

and is otherwisesilent as to the state law claims. Second, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that form part of the “same case and controversy.” If these claims are not so related to form pa rt of the same constitutional case

)) and hereit i s not cle ar t

hat Petre llo ’sstatelaw claims are so related

))the district court may not take jurisdiction over

them. See City of Chicago v. I nt’l Coll. of

Surgeons , 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997). B eca

use our jurisdiction over

the instant appeal is proper, weneed not ex amine federal jurisdiction over the state la w claims in the first instance
.

5 P e t r e llo a lle g e s , in tera lia , th a t P ru ck a refu sed to sell th e H om e to h im ( Pet r e l l o ) b e c aus e Pr uc ka di d no tw antt he ho m e al t e r e d i n anyw ay , i nc l udi ng
a n y a l t erat i on s necessary t o accom m oda t e P et rel l o’ s han di capp ed d au gh t er. Pet r e l l o ar gue s t hatt hi s i s so be c aus e P r uc ka di d notw anta nyo ne t o m o di f y t he ho m e t hathe a nd h i s w i fe ha d wor ke d ha r d t o r e s t o r e , a nd t hatPr uc ka f o und d is ta s te fu l th e id e a o f a h a n d ic a p p e d g i r l m o v in gin to it. T o th is e n d , P e tr e llo cl a i m s th a t P ru ck a viol a ted bo th the F H Aan d the R i gh t of R efu sa lA gr ee m en t,
w h ic h P e tr e llo in s is ts is a b in d in go r a l co n tr a c t. P et rel l o asser t s f

u rt h er t h at, af

t er N ath si gn ed the P u rchase C on t ractf or t h e H om e, h e t h en conspir ed w i t h an d ass i st ed Pru cka i n di scr i m i n ati n g aga i n st C a r e n a . T h is a ll e g e d c o n s p ir a c y a n d a s s is t a n c e a r e t h e s o le b a s e s fo rP e t r e ll o ’sSee, e.g. , Lake C harles Diesel, I

nc. v. Gen. Motors Cor p. , 32 8 F .3d 1 92, 195(5th Cir. 2 2 0 0 3). 6 cl ai m s ag ai n stN ath. P et rel l o a l so seeks resc i ssi on of the P u rchase C on t racton t he g r o und t hats uc h r e l i e f i s a va i l ab l e b e c aus e N at h is n ot a b o na f i de pu rchaser. Petrel l o cl ai m s t h at N ath can n otha ve pu rchased t h e H om e i n good fa ith b e c a u s e , w h e n N a th clo s e d o n th e H o m e , h e k n e w o f P e tr e llo ’ s in te r e s t in t h e property, t h e rel ated l aw sui t , an d the l i s pe nde ns . P et rel l o’ s Fif

t h A m en ded C om pl ai n tfi l ed i n J u l y 200 8 i n cl u ded a peti t i on f or i nj u n ct i ve rel i ef
. Foll ow i n g rem oval, t h e di st ri ctcourthel d an i nj u n ct i on h eari n g. A f

t er l i st en i n g t o t h e argu m en t s of t h e parti es, t h e courtoral l y gran t ed
a pr e l i m i nar yi nj u n c t i o n wi t h o u ts t a t i n ga ny i nde pe nde ntfac t ualf i ndi ngs o ra ny l egal reasons f

or i t s rul i n g. N ei t h er di d t h e court i ssue a w ri t t en order — ot h er t han a m i nut e e nt r y no t at i o n — m e m o r i al i z i ng r e as o ns f o rg r ant i ng t he pr e l i m i nar y i nj unc t i o n. The i nj unc t i o n s i m pl y bars N at h f r o m m ak i ng “ any i m p rov em en ts or m aj or ch a n ge s to the h ou se p en d i n g trial
. ” N at h t i m e l y ap pe al e d t he g r anto f t he pr e l i m i nar y i nj unc t i o n. II. A N A L Y S IS A
. Stan da rd of

R evi ew Th e g r ant of a pre l i m i nary i nj unct i on i s i m m edi at el y appe al abl e. W e have ap pe l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , a n d we r e v i e w t he 2Id
. 3 Af fi li ated P rof’ l Ho meHeal t hC

are Agen cyv . Sh alala , 16 4 F .3d 2 82, 284 -85 (5th 4 C ir
. 1 9 9 9). Wo me n ’sMe d
. Ct r. of Nw. Ho u stonv . Bel l , 24 8 F .3d 4 11, 419n .15 (5thC ir. 2 001 ) 5 (cit ationo mitt ed). F ed
. R
. C iv
. P
. 5 2 (a)(2 ); see a lso C han dler v. Cityof Dallas , 95 8 F .2d 8 5, 8 8-89(5th 6 C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ) (p erc uri a m). Ch and ler , 9 5 8F .2 d at 8 9(inte rn al pu nctu ationan d citation s r em oved). 7 7 di st ri ctcou rt’s g ra n tof such a n i nj u n ct i on f or abu se of

di scr et i on . W e revi ew

3
a n y u n d e r l y i n gf

i n d i n g s o f

fa c tfo rc l e a re r r o ra n d r e v i e w c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de
novo . 4 B
. A ppl i c abl e Law The pa r t y s e e ki ng a pr e l i m i nar y i nj unc t i o n m us tde m o ns t r at e t hat( 1) he has a subs t ant i al l i kel i hood of suc c es s on t he m er i t s of hi s und er l yi ng c l ai m , ( 2) t he r e i s a subs t ant i alt hr e att hathe w i l ls uf fe ri r r e pa r ab l e i nj ur y i f t he i nj unc t i o n d o e s n o t i s s u e , ( 3 ) s u c h i nj u r y o u t we i g h s a n y p o t e n t i a l h a r m t o t he d efen d a n t, an d ( 4 ) a n i nj u n cti on w ou l d n ot d i sse rv e th e p u b l i c i n teres t. 5 W h en gran t i n g a prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on , t h e di st ri ctcourt“ t h e courtm u st si m i l arl y st ate t h e f

i n di n gs an d c on cl u si on s t h at sup port i t s act i on . ” “ F ai l u re 6 t o m e e t the techn i calrequi rem en t s of R u l e 52 does n otw arran trevers alor
rem an d so l o ng as t he pur po s e s b e hi nd t he r ul e a r e e f fe c t uat e d. ” Ye t , e ven

7 t ho ugh Rul e 5 2 do e s no tr e qui r e “ punc t i l i o us de t ai lno rs l av i s h traci ng o f t heCox v. Cityof Dallas , 43 0 F .3d 7 34, 747(5th Cir. 2 005) (intern al punctuationan d 8 citationo mitt ed). S ie rra Clu b , Lone Star C h ap t er v . F DI C , 9 9 2 F .2 d 5 4 5 , 5 5 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 3). 9 See id. 10 Id
. at54 7. 11 8 c la im s ,” “ t h e re c o r d m u s t n e v e r th e le s s s u p p o r t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n .”

8 9 C
. M erits N at h c o nt e nds t hat( 1) t he di s t r i c tco ur tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n g r ant i ng P et rel l o’ s prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on w i t h ou tart i cul ati n g a n y fi n di n gs of factor st at i ng any l egalconc l usi ons or r eas ons , an d, ( 2) even i f the i nj unct i ve gr ant w as pr o c e dur al l y pr o pe r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n g r ant i ng t he i nj u n ct i on on the m eri t s. P et rel l o res pon ds t h at, becau se proceedi n gs f or p r e li m in a r y inju n c t io n s a r e “ le s s fo r m a l,” w e s h o u ld o v e r lo o k t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s fai l u re t o condu ctfact
- f i n di n g or s t ate l egal concl u si on s and revi ew t h e rec ord
a n d d r a w o u ro w n co n c lu s io n s . T h e m o s tp e r t in e n ta u t h o r it y in t h is c ir c u it fo rin t e r p r e t in gR u le 5 2 (a )( 2 )’s requ i rem en ti n t h e present c on t ext i s S ierra C lub v. F D IC
. I n t hatc as e , t he

10 pl ai n t i f fs s ou gh ta m an da t ory prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on preven t i n g t h e F D IC f rom appro vi ng a sal e of

envi r onm ent al l y sens i t i ve l and i n w hi c h i thad ac qui r ed an i n t erestt h rough i t s r ecei vershi p of a fai l ed ba n k. Th e distr ict court gran t ed 11Id
. 12 Id
. 13 Id
. at 5 5 1 (inte rn al citation s o mitt ed); see a lso Davis v. Un ited States , 42 2 F .2d 14 113 9, 1 142(5th Cir. 1 970) (reviewin g an inj unctive grant and declinin g to “overlo ok” th e failure of th e ma gi strate to make factual findin gs because the facts in the case were hotly di sp ute d)
. 9 th e inju n cti on w i th ou t receiving an y ev i d en ce or en tering fi n d i n gs o f fa ct. W e 12
va c at e d t he i nj unc t i o n, ho l di ng t hat , b e c aus e t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ha d e nt e r e d no f i n di n gs of

fact or l egal concl u si on s as requ i red by R u l e 52, t h e pl ai n t i f f ha d n ot
s ho w n i tw as e nt i t l e d t o i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f
. W e r e as o ne d: 13 W e ha ve h el d that a d istri ctcourtm ay i ssue a prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on w i t h o u t a n evi den t i ary h eari n g w h en t h e fact s are n ot di s put e d.

. . . . A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourtm ay em pl oy i n f orm alprocedu res an d rel y on ge ne r al l y i n ad m i ssabl e evi den ce, t h e r e c o r d m us tne ve r t he l e s s s upp o r tt he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c i s i o n . In d e e d , R u le 5 2 o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C iv il Pr o c e dur e pr o vi de s t hat“ i n g r ant i ng o rr e f us i ng i nt e r l o c ut o r y i nj unc t i o ns th e cou rt sh a lls i m i l ar l y s etf or t h f i ndi ngs of

fac tand c onc l usi ons of l aw w hi c h c o ns t i t ut e t he g r o unds f o ri t s de c i s i o ns . ” ( Em pha s i s a dde d. ) I n t he ab s e nc e o f f

i ndi ngs o f

fac ta nd c o nc l us i o ns o f l aw, w e w i l lo nl y r e vi e w t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s i nj unct i on dec i si on “ w hen t he r ec or d i s exc ept i onal l y c l ear a n d re m a n d w o u ld s e r v e n o u s e fu l p u r p o s e .” 14 In t h e i n st an tcase, t h e di st ri ct court’ s gran t of t h e prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on is n o t t h e p r o d u c t o f a n “e x c e p tio n a lly c le a r r e c o r d ” th a t w a r r a n ts r e la x in gR u le 5 2 ’ s s tr ic tu r e s . T h e fa c ts th e m s e lv e s a n d th e irle g a l im p l i c a t i o n s a r e h o tly di s put e d, a nd t he r e c o r d of t he pr o c e e di ngs ar e w ho l l y de vo i d of any ba s i s f

o rt heSierra Club, 9 9 2 F .2 d at 5 5 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 3). 15 10 d i stri ct cou rt’ s d ecisi on . T h a t cou rt did n ot i ssu e a n op in ion or ex p l a i n i ts
rea son i n g d u ri n g th e h ea ri n g or elsew h ere . N eit h er d i d i t i d en ti fy the elem en ts requ i red f

or a prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on , ei t h er duri n g t h e hea ri n g or atan y ot h er ti m e, a n d i t m a d e n o sta tem en t as to w h eth er ith a d con sider ed tho se e l em en ts
o rho w i tf

o und t he m t o ha ve b e e n s at i s f i e d. The c o ur tnev e rdi s c us s e d t he s c o pe of t h e i nj u n ct i on or defi n ed w h at w ou l d c on st i t u t e “ an y i m provem en t s orm aj or ch a n ge s” t o th e H om e. T h e en ti re d ecisi on co n s ists of th e u tteran ce of bu t a si n gl e sentence du ri n g t h e course of t h e i nj u n ct i on h eari n g, vi z, ; “ T h e N aths are
e njo in e d fr o m a n y im p r o v e m e n ts o r m ajo r c h a n g e s to th e [H o m e ] p e n d in gtr ia l.” P erm i t t i n g t h e di st ri ctcourtt o condu ct“ l ess f orm al ” proceedi n gs does not
m ean t h at a di st ri ctcourti s f ree t o aba n don al lsubstance an d procedu re, w h i ch i s es senti al l y w h at hap pen ed h ere. C ert ai n l y, nei t h erSi e r r a C l ub n or any ot h er
au t h ori t y of w h i ch w e are aw are m ak es such al l ow an ce; rat h er t h at case ad m on i shes t h at “ [ a] l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourtm ay em pl oy i n f orm alprocedu res
an d rel y on gen eral l y i n ad m i ssi bl e evi den ce, t h e rec ord m u stnev ert h el ess
s upp o r tt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n. ” W e a r e c o m pl e t e l y s at i s f i e d t hatt he 15 di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s di scr et i on b y gran t i n g t h e prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on
w ith o u t d e v e lop in gth e fa ctu a l a n d le g a l iss u e s a s r e q u ire d u n d e r R u le 5 2 (a )(2). A s t h e rec ord i s n ot “ excepti on al l y cl ear, ” rem an d i s requ i red i n t h e absen ce of11

f i ndi ngs o f

fac ta nd c o nc l us i o ns o f l aw. Fi nal l y, b e c aus e w e con cl ude t hatt he di st ri ctcou rtd i d n ota deq u atel y com pl y w i t h R u l e 52’ s r equ i rem en t s, w e do n ot
a d d r e s s th e m e r its o f th e g r a n t o f th e in s ta n t inju n c tio n . I I I
. C ONC L US I ON Fort he f

o r go i ng r e as o ns , w e V AC AT E t he di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s i nj unc t i o n a nd RE M AN D f

o rf ur t he rpr o c e e di ngs c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t hi s o pi ni o n. O n r e m and , how eve r , t he di st r i c tc our ts houl d det er m i ne bo t h w het h er s uppl em ent al ju r is d ic tio n fo rth e s ta te la w c la im s h a s b e e n p r o p e r ly a s s e r te d a n d w h e th e rit
s h o u ld co n tin u e e x e r c is in gs u c h ju r is d ic tio n in th is ca s e . VA CA T ED a n d R EMANDE D.