Gil v. Ortiz
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04748
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gil v. Ortiz, Judge Swain denied Aida R. Gil’s temporary restraining order and denied her request to appeal without paying filing fees.
Aida R. Gil and the pending proceedings before Judge Frances Ortiz in the New York City Civil Court’s Housing Part.
What happened
In Gil v. Ortiz, Aida R. Gil, representing herself, asked the court to temporarily stop proceedings before Judge Frances Ortiz in New York City Civil Court’s Housing Part. She said those proceedings were scheduled to begin July 1, 2025.
The court said immediate emergency relief required a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likely win or serious legal questions combined with hardships strongly favoring Gil. The court found that Gil had not made the required showing and denied her motion for a temporary restraining order.
Judge Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Gil permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The court said it would issue a fuller explanation later.
The detailed version
- Gil v. Ortiz · No. 1:25-cv-04748
- Laura Swain
- June 30, 2025
Background
Aida R. Gil, who was representing herself, moved for a temporary restraining order. She principally asked the federal court to stay, or temporarily halt, proceedings pending before Judge Frances Ortiz of the New York City Civil Court, New York County, Housing Part. Gil alleged that those proceedings were scheduled to begin on July 1, 2025.
Legal standard
The court explained that temporary emergency injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. Gil had to show that she was likely to suffer irreparable harm and either was likely to succeed on the merits or presented sufficiently serious legal questions to justify litigation, with the balance of hardships strongly favoring her.
Ruling
The court found that Gil’s motion did not show either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court therefore denied Gil’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The court stated that it would issue an explanatory order later.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Gil permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.