Mims v. FedEx Corporation

Background

Satchidananda Mims alleged that FedEx Corporation, The Vanguard Group, Inc., and other defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing to release funds requested in a hardship withdrawal. He requested a gross distribution of $20,000, or $17,000 after taxes, saying the money was needed to prevent imminent eviction from his primary residence. The court had denied his earlier ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order on July 9, 2025. Mims filed the renewed motion on July 23, 2025.

Notice requirement

A temporary restraining-order motion must include a declaration certifying that notice was provided to the opposing party or explaining why notice could not be provided. Mims’s certificate of notice said that he would send the motion, supporting documents, and complaint to FedEx Corporation and The Vanguard Group, Inc. on July 24. The court held that this statement of future intent did not show that the required notice had been provided or that notice could not be provided. The court therefore denied the motion on that ground.

Likelihood of success

The court also considered whether Mims had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, meaning a sufficient chance of ultimately prevailing, or at least serious questions supporting emergency relief. Mims relied on a federal tax regulation stating that payments necessary to prevent eviction from an employee’s principal residence may qualify as distributions for an immediate and heavy financial need. The regulation also limits a distribution to the amount required to satisfy that need.

Mims’s $20,000 request included $10,500 for estimated rent arrears and disputed fees, $4,000 for estimated legal fees, and $5,500 for first and last months’ rent, a security deposit, and moving costs if he had to relocate. The court found that moving costs could not be categorized as payments necessary to prevent eviction, so the request was at least overbroad. The court also said it was unclear whether paying the claimed rent and damage amounts would allow Mims to remain in the unit. The record included a landlord’s letter describing Mims as an unauthorized occupant and citing reasons for eviction beyond unpaid rent and damages. Mims provided a 2016 state-court order naming him and Akenduca Beasley as defendants in an unlawful-detainer action, but he did not provide evidence that he was on the lease or otherwise currently authorized to remain in the unit. He also did not provide evidence that paying the claimed amounts would prevent eviction.

Ruling and next step

Judge Jon S. Tigar concluded that Mims had not made the required showing of likely success or serious questions on the merits and denied the renewed motion for a temporary restraining order. The order did not dismiss the lawsuit. It reminded Mims that he must file a statement by August 8, 2025, if he wants to proceed with the case; the court stated that it will dismiss the case without prejudice if he does not file that statement.