Dolce v. Certified Luxury Motors
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-02150
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dolce v. Certified Luxury Motors, Judge Torres denied the plaintiffs’ emergency-order and document-preservation requests, requiring service before emergency relief.
Persephone Dolce and Darius Goodworth could not obtain the requested emergency or document-preservation orders without first serving the defendants. The defendants were not required to provide the requested vehicle or loan-related relief at this stage.
What happened
In Dolce v. Certified Luxury Motors, Persephone Dolce and Darius Goodworth, representing themselves, sued a car dealership, a bank, a mechanic shop, and others. They asked for an emergency order requiring vehicle registration, a certified title, and suspension of their auto loan.
The plaintiffs objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny that request. Judge Lehrburger concluded that they had already notified the defendants about their claims, so an emergency order without notice was not justified. The court also noted that the plaintiffs sought affirmative steps rather than simply preserving the existing situation.
Judge Analisa Torres adopted the recommendation, denied the request for an emergency order, and denied the request to preserve documents. The plaintiffs must serve the defendants before seeking emergency relief, although they may later renew the request as one for a preliminary injunction after service.
The detailed version
- Dolce v. Certified Luxury Motors · No. 1:25-cv-02150
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
Persephone Dolce and Darius Goodworth, proceeding without lawyers, brought claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, federal and state consumer-protection laws, and New York common law against the listed defendants. They applied for an ex parte temporary restraining order, meaning an emergency order sought without first giving the opposing parties notice or an opportunity to respond. The requested relief included requiring the defendants to process the vehicle’s registration, provide a certified copy of the vehicle’s title, and suspend enforcement of the auto loan connected to the vehicle’s purchase.
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny the temporary-restraining-order application and require the plaintiffs to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants. The plaintiffs objected, arguing primarily that they faced continuing financial, physical, emotional, transportation, vehicle-use, and credit-related harm. They also objected to the recommendation not to issue a document-preservation order.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy. An applicant generally must show likely success on the merits, immediate irreparable harm, favorable balancing of the hardships, and consistency with the public interest. A request made without notice requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard, along with compliance with the notice-certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1).
The court agreed that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the special requirements for an order without notice. The plaintiffs had already sent demand letters to Certified Luxury Motors, informed the company of their intent to sue, contacted Ally Financial about the allegedly fraudulent loan, and told defendants that their practices were illegal. The defendants therefore had been put on notice, and the plaintiffs could not show that the defendants could not be contacted or that advance contact itself would cause irreparable injury. The court also stated that the requested relief was affirmative relief rather than an order preserving the existing situation. Because those points defeated the request for an ex parte order, the court did not need to decide whether any alleged harm qualified as irreparable harm.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres adopted Judge Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendation. The court denied the plaintiffs’ application for an ex parte temporary restraining order and denied their request for a document-preservation order. The court required the plaintiffs to serve the defendants before obtaining relief. Because the plaintiffs had asked the court not to order expedited service, they could serve the defendants within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court explained that, after service, the plaintiffs could renew their request as a motion for a preliminary injunction by filing the required materials and proof of service. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying fraud, consumer-protection, or other claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.