Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle Word of Faith Ministries v. Bernstein
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-07416
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle v. Bernstein, Judge Nathan denied emergency mandamus and injunction requests because notice was lacking and extraordinary relief was unwarranted.
The petitioners’ requests for emergency relief were denied; the respondents were not required to respond to relief that the court found had not been properly noticed.
What happened
Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle Word of Faith Ministries v. Bernstein involved an emergency petition asking for extraordinary court orders and a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The petitioners sought relief related to a bankruptcy-court ruling appointing a Chapter 11 trustee.
The court found that the petitioners had not shown that they served or otherwise notified the respondents, and had not shown they qualified for emergency relief without notice. The court also said that emergency relief would not be justified even if the motion had been properly noticed because the petitioners had not timely opposed the trustee’s appointment and waited nearly a month after a similar bankruptcy-court ruling before seeking relief.
Judge Nathan denied both the petition and the motion. The court explained that mandamus—an order compelling official action—is available only when the right to relief is clear and ordinary remedies are inadequate, and concluded that the circumstances did not meet that standard.
The detailed version
- Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle Word of Faith Ministries v. Bernstein · No. 1:20-cv-07416
- Alison Nathan
- Sept. 11, 2020
Background
Petitioners filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus and an Emergency Motion for an Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The opinion states that the requested relief concerned the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee in the bankruptcy court.
Notice and Emergency Relief
The court found that the record did not show that petitioners had served the petition and motion on respondents or otherwise notified them. Petitioners also had not demonstrated that they were entitled to relief without advance notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1).
The court further held that extraordinary relief would not be warranted even on a properly noticed motion. It explained that mandamus—an extraordinary order requiring official action—is appropriate only when the petitioner’s right to relief is clear and indisputable and ordinary remedies would not adequately protect the petitioner’s interests. The court stated that petitioners had not timely opposed the appointment of the Chapter 11 trustee in the bankruptcy court. It also noted that petitioners waited nearly a month after the bankruptcy court ruled on a similar motion before seeking emergency relief in the district court. The court concluded that, given this delay, the balance of equities did not favor emergency relief.
Disposition
The court denied the petition and the motion. The opinion does not state that either request was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.