Vitale v. Jordan
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-01902
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Vitale v. Jordan, Judge Donato denied plaintiffs’ motions, accepted their case-management statement, and terminated two defendants after voluntary dismissal with prejudice.
Pro se plaintiffs Francesco and Frances Vitale; the order also terminated TD Bank Group and Leo Salom from the electronic docket after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed them with prejudice.
What happened
In Vitale v. Jordan, pro se plaintiffs Francesco and Frances Vitale were ordered to explain why defendants had not been served on time and why a case-management statement had not been filed or prepared cooperatively. They filed the statement but did not explain the failure to serve defendants.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order because it lacked the required specific facts, notice certification, and showing supporting emergency relief. The court also denied their renewed request for a notice of lis pendens because they had not shown good cause, and denied their request for a default judgment because no defendant had been declared in default.
The court accepted the case-management statement and terminated TD Bank Group and Leo Salom from the electronic docket after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed them with prejudice. Judge Donato signed the order on November 20, 2023.
The detailed version
- Vitale v. Jordan · No. 3:23-cv-01902
- James Donato
- Nov. 20, 2023
Background
The court had ordered pro se plaintiffs Francesco and Frances Vitale to file a status statement addressing their failure to serve defendants on time and their failure to file or cooperate in filing a case-management statement. The plaintiffs filed a case-management statement by the deadline, but they still had not explained why service had not been completed. Their complaint named more than a dozen defendants and was described by the court as difficult to follow.
Motions
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The court found that the motion did not provide specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint showing that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the opposing parties could respond. The plaintiffs also did not certify in writing their efforts to provide notice or explain why notice should not be required. In addition, the court found that the motion was cursory and conclusory and did not show the requirements for preliminary relief, including likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, favorable balancing of the equities, and consistency with the public interest.
The court had previously denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a notice of lis pendens for lack of good cause. It denied the plaintiffs’ second ex parte application for a notice of lis pendens for the same reason.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment because no defaults had been entered on the docket against any defendant.
Other Rulings
The court accepted the plaintiffs’ case-management statement. It also stated that, pursuant to the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice, TD Bank Group and Leo Salom had been terminated from the electronic court docket.
Disposition
The order denied the temporary-restraining-order motion, denied the second notice-of-lis-pendens application, and denied the default-judgment motion. It accepted the case-management statement and terminated TD Bank Group and Leo Salom from the electronic docket after the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Judge James Donato issued the order on November 20, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.