Perez v. Evans
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-00356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Perez v. Evans, Judge Broderick told defendants not to respond yet to a temporary restraining-order motion while reviewing objections to a recommended dismissal.
Eric Andrew Perez and the defendants, who were not required to respond to the temporary restraining-order motion until the court ruled on the objections and Report and Recommendation.
What happened
In Perez v. Evans, Eric Andrew Perez filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on July 28, 2025. He had also objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss all of his claims with prejudice.
The court did not decide the temporary restraining-order motion. Instead, it stated that the defendants did not need to respond until the court ruled on Perez’s objections and the recommendation.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick explained that, if he adopted the recommendation, he would deny the temporary restraining-order motion because Perez could not show sufficiently serious questions about the merits of his claims. The order was dated August 1, 2025.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Evans · No. 1:24-cv-00356
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 1, 2025
Background
Eric Andrew Perez filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, an emergency request for a court order requiring or preventing specified conduct, on July 28, 2025. The court was also reviewing Perez’s objections to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Report and Recommendation, which recommended dismissing all of Perez’s claims with prejudice.
Court’s Action
The court did not grant or deny the temporary restraining-order motion in this order. It stated that the defendants did not need to respond to the motion until the court issued its opinion on the pending objections and Report and Recommendation.
Reasoning and Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick stated that if he overruled Perez’s objections and adopted the recommendation, he would deny the temporary restraining-order motion. In that event, Perez would not satisfy the minimum requirement of showing sufficiently serious questions about the merits of his claims to make them a fair ground for litigation. The order therefore postponed the defendants’ response; it did not resolve the temporary restraining-order motion or the objections.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.