Jackson v. Lycos
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:19-cv-02325
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Jackson v. Lycos: Judge Ericksen let Dana D. Jackson proceed without prepaying fees but denied injunctive relief and the LLC’s fee request.
Dana D. Jackson received permission to proceed without prepaying fees. Jackson Americas Srvcs, LLC was denied that status to the extent the application sought it for the LLC, and the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was denied.
What happened
In Jackson v. Lycos, Dana D. Jackson and Jackson Americas Srvcs, LLC asked to proceed without prepaying court fees and requested an order requiring the defendants to take or avoid certain actions. The court said it was unclear whether they sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or both.
The court granted Dana D. Jackson permission to proceed without prepaying fees. It denied that status to the extent the application sought it for Jackson Americas Srvcs, LLC. The court denied the request for injunctive relief because it did not meet required notice and written-certification procedures and did not address the factors required to justify an injunction. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Judge Joan N. Ericksen issued the order on August 28, 2019. The order also noted that Jackson, who was representing herself, could not represent the LLC because a nonlawyer cannot represent a limited-liability company.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Lycos · No. 0:19-cv-02325
- Joan Ericksen
- Aug. 28, 2019
Motions and background
The court considered two requests by the plaintiffs: an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, and a request for injunctive relief. The opinion states that it was unclear whether the injunction request sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or both.
Fee application
Based on the financial information provided, the court granted the fee application to the extent it sought permission for Dana D. Jackson to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. The court stated that it was unclear whether the application also sought that status for Jackson Americas Srvcs, LLC. To the extent it did, the court denied the application for the LLC. The court explained that Jackson was representing herself, did not indicate that she was a lawyer, and could not represent an LLC as a nonlawyer. The court noted that this issue might affect claims brought on behalf of the LLC, but expressly stated that it did not need to decide that issue for purposes of the injunction request.
Injunctive-relief request
The court denied the injunction request for both procedural and substantive reasons. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a preliminary injunction may be issued only after notice to the opposing party. A party seeking a temporary restraining order must also certify in writing the efforts made to give notice and why notice should not be required. The court found that the request met neither requirement.
The court also found that the plaintiffs had not made the required substantive showing. A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must persuade the court that four factors favor relief: the threat of irreparable harm, the balance between that harm and injury to other parties, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the public interest. The request did not discuss those factors, so the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing that injunctive relief was justified.
Disposition
Judge Joan N. Ericksen ordered that the fee application was granted as to Dana D. Jackson and denied to the extent it sought permission for Jackson Americas Srvcs, LLC. The plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was denied. This order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.