UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_______________________________

CELIA C. ROY NORMAN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-13153

v. Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

CHRISTIANSEN VON WORMER 

and CHRISTIANSEN VON WORMER, 

TRUSTEE OF THE CELIA C. ROY TRUST,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 65

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application for Injunctive Relief

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. For the reasons below, the Court sua

sponte DISMISSES the Application.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Celia C. Roy Norman filed this Application contemporaneous with a

Complaint against Defendant Christiansen Von Wormer, individually and as trustee of

the Celia C. Roy Trust; the Complaint alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Duty

of Loyalty, and Negligent Management and seeks an accounting and injunctive relief. 

Plaintiff contends that Von Wormer, her son, refused to honor her requests for estate

documents and an accounting, and stopped paying her current husband, John Norman,

$2,000.00 per month to assist with her living expenses. As a result, Plaintiff revoked

her Power of Attorney (“POA”) to Von Wormer on July 24, 2008.

2:09-cv-13153-VAR-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 65
2

Plaintiff says Von Wormer refuses to acknowledge the revocation and continues

to use POA . Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin Defendant, and any agent or

representative, from: (1) using the revoked POA; (2) acting as trustee of the Celia Roy

Trust, except for accounting for past activities; (3) interfering with Plaintiff’s ability to

manage her own finances; and (4) interfering with Plaintiff’s decisions to modify her

existing estate plan.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a trial court must consider:

(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits;

(2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the

injunction;

(3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to 

others; and 

(4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the

injunction. 

Tumblebus Inc. v. Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 760 (6th Cir. 2005). See also United Food

and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Sw. Ohio Regional Transit Auth., 163

F.3d 341, 347 (6th Cir. 1998). In seeking a preliminary injunction, a federal plaintiff has

the burden of establishing the likelihood of success on the merits. Tumblebus, 399 F.3d

at 760.

Upon review of Plaintiff’s Application, the Court finds that it does not address any

of the above factors. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Application was not accompanied by a

brief, as required by E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(c)(1)(A).

2:09-cv-13153-VAR-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 66
3

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Application for Injunctive Relief

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. 

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: August 18, 2009

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

August 18, 2009.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-13153-VAR-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 67