Rosa v. Pathstone Corporation
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-01071
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Rosa v. Pathstone Corporation, Judge Karas postponed ruling on Rosa’s eviction-related injunction motion and ordered her to provide more information.
Felicia Rosa, who sought to stop the state-court eviction proceeding, and the defendants in the federal action. The order did not decide whether Rosa’s underlying claims were valid or whether the eviction would proceed.
What happened
In Rosa v. Pathstone Corporation, Felicia Rosa, representing herself, asked the federal court to stop a state-court eviction proceeding brought by YYA Estates for unpaid rent. She said eviction could leave her and her children homeless and could affect her custody of them.
The court said Rosa had not addressed three required issues: whether she was likely to succeed or had serious questions supporting her claims, whether the hardships favored her, and whether an injunction would serve the public interest. The court assumed, without deciding, that she might show irreparable harm.
The court did not deny or grant the motion. Judge Kenneth M. Karas declined to rule on it at that time and allowed Rosa to supplement her motion by October 17, 2023, at 5 p.m. Eastern time.
The detailed version
- Rosa v. Pathstone Corporation · No. 7:23-cv-01071
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 13, 2023
Background
Felicia Rosa filed the action against Pathstone Corporation, Megan Jackson, Damaris Gonzalez, and Zelma DaSilva. She alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Fair Housing Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Rosa represented herself.
Rosa moved for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction concerning an eviction proceeding in Port Jervis City Court. Her declaration stated that YYA Estates LLC had brought the proceeding against her for nonpayment of rent. She asked the federal court to stop the eviction proceeding while it considered her claims concerning Pathstone’s alleged stoppage of her rent payments to YYA Estates. YYA Estates was no longer a defendant in this federal action, and Port Jervis City Court was not a party to it.
Rosa said that, without emergency relief, she could become homeless with her children and could lose custody of them. She also argued that the Supremacy Clause gave the federal court authority to stop the state-court proceeding.
Legal standard
The court explained that a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction generally require the moving party to show: a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation; a likelihood of irreparable injury without relief; a balance of hardships favoring the movant; and that the public interest would not be harmed by the injunction. The court also stated that this remedy is extraordinary and is not automatically available, including when the motion is unopposed.
Court’s analysis
The court assumed, for purposes of the order, that Rosa might have shown a likelihood of irreparable injury. It concluded, however, that she had not addressed or established the other required elements: likely success or sufficiently serious questions on the merits, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.
Because Rosa was representing herself, the court said it would read her submissions under less demanding standards and give them special consideration. Instead of denying the motion, the court gave her an opportunity to provide the missing information.
Disposition
The court declined to rule on Rosa’s motion at that time. Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed Rosa to file a supplemental submission addressing the three additional elements by no later than 5 p.m. Eastern time on October 17, 2023. The order therefore did not grant or deny the requested temporary restraining order or injunction and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.