82 Glenwood Ave LLC v. Schutze
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-04192
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In 82 Glenwood Ave LLC v. Schutze, Judge Halpern would not sign the proposed temporary restraining order before a conference with the parties.
82 Glenwood Ave LLC and the defendants named in the case; the order addressed only the procedure for seeking immediate injunctive relief.
What happened
In 82 Glenwood Ave LLC v. Schutze, 82 Glenwood Ave LLC asked the court for emergency relief concerning $3 million it said had been provided as a real-estate deposit and not returned.
The plaintiff asked the court to prohibit the defendants from using or moving the money and to schedule a hearing about an injunction. The plaintiff argued that its money was being held without authorization and that it faced immediate, irreparable harm.
Judge Philip M. Halpern did not sign the proposed temporary restraining order before a conference. He directed the plaintiff to follow the court’s rules for requesting that conference and the federal rule governing restraining orders and injunctions.
The detailed version
- 82 Glenwood Ave LLC v. Schutze · No. 7:23-cv-04192
- Philip Halpern
- May 24, 2023
Background
The plaintiff, 82 Glenwood Ave LLC, filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or injunction. The attached motion alleged that $3,000,000 had been wired to Kane Title LLC as an earnest-money deposit for a real-estate purchase. The plaintiff alleged that the transaction was later agreed to be terminated and that the money was supposed to be returned, but that it had not been returned.
The motion asserted that the plaintiff faced immediate and irreparable harm because it did not know where the money was or how it was being used. It asked the court to prevent all defendants from using or moving any of the $3,000,000 and to hold an evidentiary hearing about whether an injunction should remain in place while the case proceeded.
What the Court Did
The court stated that it would not sign the proposed temporary restraining order, identified as Doc. 6, before a conference with the parties. The court directed the plaintiff to review and comply with its Individual Practices, particularly Rule 4(F), concerning applications for injunctive relief. It also stated that the conference had to be requested in accordance with Rules 2(C) and 4(F) of those practices and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The order did not decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to the $3,000,000, whether any defendant had liability, or whether a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction should ultimately issue.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.