Empire Community Development LLC v. Walters

Background

Derrick Walters, proceeding without a lawyer, sought a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to stop a foreclosure sale that he said was scheduled for May 29, 2025. His filing also sought a preliminary injunction and asserted claims involving the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, due process, alleged fraudulent mortgage assignments, wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, and civil racketeering.

Walters alleged that Empire Community Development LLC and other defendants lacked a valid chain of title and standing to foreclose. He also alleged that mortgage documents contained irregular signatures and notarizations, that he had not been properly served in the underlying foreclosure case, and that the defendants failed to accommodate his disability. The order did not decide whether any of those allegations were valid.

Reasoning

The court identified two reasons for denying emergency relief. First, it found that Walters had not complied with Rule 65(b)(1) because he had not served or otherwise given notice of the application to the opposing parties. He also had not certified that immediate and irreparable harm would occur if notice were provided. Irreparable harm means harm that cannot adequately be repaired later.

Second, the court said Walters’s papers showed that he had known about the foreclosure for a substantial period but waited until then to seek a temporary restraining order. The court explained that such a delay may undermine a claim that immediate harm is likely.

Ruling and next steps

The court denied the temporary restraining-order motion without prejudice. That means the denial did not prevent Walters from renewing the application. The court allowed him to revive it by serving counsel for Empire and the other defendants by noon on May 28, 2025, and said email service was acceptable. Any opposition was due by noon on May 29, 2025, with no extensions.

The supplied case information identifies Judge Kenneth Karas, but the reproduced opinion text also contains a caption listing “Judge: ARUN SUBRAMANIAN.” The materials therefore contain an unresolved inconsistency about the judge, although this summary uses the judge supplied in the case metadata.