Felton v. Jives

Background

Plaintiffs Bishop Wayne R. Felton and The Holy Christian Church International sued Defendants De’Mario Jives and DeMajio Media LLC for defamation. The complaint alleged that Jives published videos and social-media posts making false and defamatory accusations about Felton. The parties reached a confidential settlement agreement on September 11, 2024.

The next morning, Jives hosted a YouTube Live video titled “Good Morning. . . . Victory is REAL Sweet!!!” He repeatedly declared victory, stated that he did not have to pay money to settle the case, discussed aspects of the settlement, and suggested that viewers could contact him for more information. He also made statements associating Felton with the devil. Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order seeking removal of the video, compliance with the settlement agreement, and an order barring discussion of the settlement conference.

Defendants’ Agreement

At the September 13, 2024 hearing, Defendants’ counsel attended by telephone. Defendants did not object to the requested relief and agreed to a temporary injunction for 30 days or until further order. The court stated that this agreement alone was enough to grant the motion, but it also evaluated the request on the merits.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the request as an expedited preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), rather than a temporary restraining order issued without notice or a hearing under Rule 65(b). It applied the four factors from Dataphase: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest.

The court found that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on a claim that Defendants breached the settlement agreement. Under Minnesota law, settlement agreements are contracts. The court found that the parties had memorialized an enforceable settlement, that Plaintiffs had no unmet condition precedent, and that the settlement prohibited Defendants from making further posts, statements, or other content concerning or related to Felton, his family, or the Church. The court concluded that the video was likely related to Felton and that statements about Jives not having to pay anything likely breached the settlement’s confidentiality provision. The court also found that Felton’s evidence persuasively showed reputational harm to him and the Church.

The court found irreparable harm because reputational damage could not be adequately remedied later with money damages. It concluded that the balance of harms favored Plaintiffs because any lost YouTube revenue for Defendants would be minimal compared with Plaintiffs’ reputational damage. The public-interest factor also favored Plaintiffs because the public has an interest in enforcing settlement agreements and protecting the confidentiality of settlement conferences. The court concluded that all four factors supported the injunction.

Bond and Order

The court waived the bond requirement under Rule 65(c), finding that any monetary harm to Defendants would be minimal and that Defendants had agreed to the injunction without requesting a bond.

The court GRANTED Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. It ordered Defendants to immediately cease public discussions of the settlement, settlement conference, or lawsuit; immediately remove videos and publications discussing the settlement or conference; and strictly comply with all settlement terms. Plaintiffs were permitted to publicly file the previously confidential term sheet on the court website. The order remains in effect until further order, and Plaintiffs are not required to post a bond. The written order replaced and superseded the court’s oral order from the September 13 hearing.