Court Opinion

ID: 9914517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 15:11:43.273145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:19.238793
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                                                                                           Filed 09/2 23
                                                                                                        Washmgton nit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT                                   Q    -u
                                                             d!4                    CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit                                                                   Case N0. 23—CV—04076
65 State Street
Montpelier VT 05602
802-828-2091
WWW.Vermontjudiciary.org

                                     Daniel Heyde et a1 V. Lourdes Macias et a1

                     Ruling on Request for Temporary Restraining Order
        This is a residential eviction action ﬁled by Landlords Daniel Heyde and Rosa

Kink against Tenants Lourdes Macias and Patrick Rogers. Landlords seek an ex parte

temporary restraining order, Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(a), evicting Tenants from the leased

premises. There is no proof of service in the record, and Tenants have not yet answered

or appeared. Landlords also seek a preliminary injunction to the same effect.

        Landlords represent that Tenants rent a small residential structure that they call

the Tiny Home, which is next to their own residence. According to Landlords, Tenants

have use of Landlords’ residence for water, laundry, and toilet facilities, among others,

services that are not available in the Tiny Home. The parties’ relationship soured at

some point after Ms. Macias became injured in the Tiny Home and sued Landlords.

Landlords later asked Tenants to vacate. Landlords assert a litany of examples of the

parties’ current fractious and untenable relationship. They allege that they eventually

provided Tenants with notice to vacate according to the terms of 9 V.S.A. § 4467(h)

(termination of shared residence), and Tenants nevertheless have not vacated.

        An injunction, particularly an ex parte one, is an “extraordinary remedy,” and the

plaintiff bears the burden of showing that his right to such relief is clear and that the

Court should not allow the opposing party a chance to respond prior to affording the

Order                                                                                Page 1 of 3
23—CV—O4076 Daniel Heyde et a1 v. Lourdes Macias et a1
requested relief. See Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(a); Comm. to Save the Bishop’s House v. Medical

Center Hosp. of Vt., 136 Vt. 213, 218 (1978); Blast v. Fisher, No. 07-CV-0567, 2007 WL

2815754, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2007); see also Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Town of

Ludlow, 171 Vt. 201, 212 (2000) (discussing preliminary injunctions).

        Landlords seek both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.

Temporary injunctions typically are entered ex parte, before the opposing party has

notice and an opportunity to contest them. Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Preliminary injunctions,

on the other hand, are entered only after notice and a hearing, which affords the

opposing parties due process. See Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). A request for a preliminary

injunction typically seeks to advance the relief ultimately sought in the case, a final

injunction, at least until the case progresses to a final judgment. A hearing on the

preliminary injunction, if appropriate, may be consolidated with the trial on the merits

so that ultimate relief may be considered at an early stage of the proceeding. Vt. R. Civ.

P. 65(b)(2). A temporary restraining order is different. Its purpose is merely “to preserve

the status quo until there is an opportunity to hold a hearing on the application for a

preliminary injunction.” 11A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2951 (3d ed.).

Though it may be entered prior to notice and a hearing in appropriate circumstances, it

is truly extraordinary relief.

        Landlords’ request for a temporary restraining order in this case is misguided.

They do not seek to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be held on their request

for a preliminary injunction. Instead, they seek the ultimate relief requested in this

case—eviction—at the outset of the case without affording Tenants any due process

whatsoever. Their request is out of step with Rule 65 procedure and Tenants’ due

Order                                                                      Page 2 of 3
23-CV-04076 Daniel Heyde et al v. Lourdes Macias et al
process rights. The Court notes that their request for a preliminary injunction evicting

Tenants, if granted, presumably would amount in substance to a ﬁnal injunction because

it is unlikely that once evicted Tenants would have any choice but to ﬁnd housing

elsewhere, rendering any “preliminary” relief ﬁnal in effect. Further, additional

proceedings typically would require hearing any potential defenses prior to court action.

         For the foregoing reasons, Landlords’ motion for a temporary restraining order is

denied. However, the Court will fashion an expedited schedule as to the request for a

preliminary injunction. First, Landlords shall serve the complaint and inform the Court

when service is made. Second, Tenants shall submit a response to the motion for a

preliminary injunction within seven calendar days of service. The Court then will set the

matter for a prompt hearing to determine whether to issue any preliminary relief.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 29th day of September, 2023.

                                                         Elecu‘onicallv signed pursuant tn VILEF. 9{dj-.

                                                                  '

                                                          lirnothy é . Tomasi
                                                         Superior Courtjudge

Order                                                                                                  Page 3 of 3
23—CV—O4076 Daniel Heyde et al V. Lourdes Macias et a1