Scaminaci v. Jaffrey
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-00321
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Scaminaci v. Jaffrey, Judge Vyskocil denied Scaminaci’s preliminary-injunction motion and Melody Wireless Infrastructure’s motion to intervene.
Andres Scaminaci’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied; Melody Wireless Infrastructure, Inc.’s request to intervene was also denied, while its opposition brief was treated as an amicus brief. Omar Jaffrey remained the opposing party identified in the order.
What happened
In Scaminaci v. Jaffrey, Andres Scaminaci asked the court for a preliminary injunction. Omar Jaffrey opposed the request, and the court held a hearing on January 22, 2021.
Melody Wireless Infrastructure, Inc. asked to join the case only to oppose Scaminaci’s injunction request. The court denied that request because it found that Jaffrey adequately represented MWI’s interests, while treating MWI’s filing as a friend-of-the-court brief.
The court also denied Scaminaci’s motion for a preliminary injunction because he had not met his burden under the federal rule governing such injunctions. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said the court would explain its reasoning in a later opinion.
The detailed version
- Scaminaci v. Jaffrey · No. 1:21-cv-00321
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 22, 2021
Background
Andres Scaminaci filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 14, 2021. The court directed Omar Jaffrey to respond and scheduled a hearing for January 22, 2021. Jaffrey filed an opposition, and the court held the hearing on that date.
Melody Wireless Infrastructure, Inc. (MWI) separately moved to intervene under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the limited purpose of opposing Scaminaci’s motion. Scaminaci opposed MWI’s request.
Intervention ruling
The court denied MWI’s motion to intervene. It stated that intervention as of right requires a timely application, an interest in the action, a showing that the interest could be impaired by the action’s disposition, and a showing that the existing parties do not adequately protect that interest. The court also stated that permissive intervention considers substantially the same factors.
The court found that Jaffrey more than adequately represented MWI’s interests in opposing the preliminary-injunction motion. The court treated MWI’s opposition brief as an amicus brief, meaning a filing by a nonparty offering information or argument to the court.
Preliminary-injunction ruling
The court denied Scaminaci’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It explained that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and that the person seeking it must clearly carry the burden of persuasion. The court found that Scaminaci had not met his burden under Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The order states that the court would fully explain its reasoning in a forthcoming opinion. It does not state the underlying dispute or provide that later explanation. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 13.
Disposition
The court denied MWI’s motion to intervene and denied Scaminaci’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The order was signed by United States District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.