Sweigert v. Goodman
- John Koeltl
- 1:23-cv-05875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Sweigert v. Goodman, Judge Koeltl denied Sweigert’s request to stop Goodman’s social-media broadcasts through a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
D. G. Sweigert’s request for immediate relief against Jason Goodman was denied; the opinion does not state that the underlying claims were finally resolved.
What happened
In Sweigert v. Goodman, D. G. Sweigert, who represented himself, asked the court to stop Jason Goodman’s social-media broadcasts. Sweigert alleged that Goodman called him a criminal and made other accusations.
The court treated the request as an application for both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. It found that Sweigert had not shown a likely legal basis for his claim, because the allegations did not involve trademark infringement or a related claim under the Lanham Act. The court also found no sufficient showing of harm that money could not address, noting the delay in seeking relief and the age of the alleged conduct.
Judge Koeltl denied Sweigert’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court also found that Sweigert had not shown that the balance of hardships or the public interest favored an injunction.
The detailed version
- Sweigert v. Goodman · No. 1:23-cv-05875
- John Koeltl
- May 21, 2024
Background
D. G. Sweigert, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under the Lanham Act seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief against Jason Goodman. Sweigert sought to stop Goodman’s social-media broadcasts, which Sweigert said described him as a criminal, accused him of violating criminal laws, and accused him of filing forged documents in other courts. The motion was filed in No. 23-cv-5875, and the court later treated it as an application for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The time for Goodman to respond passed without a response being filed.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain one, a plaintiff generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation, a likelihood of irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court applied the same standard to the request for a temporary restraining order.
The court found that Sweigert had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions. Although Sweigert cited provisions of the Lanham Act, the court said it was unclear how the Act applied because the case did not involve allegations of trademark infringement or related claims. The court also noted that Sweigert had previously sought an injunction against the same conduct by the same defendant in a prior related proceeding, and that request had been denied.
The court further found that Sweigert had not sufficiently shown irreparable harm—harm that cannot be compensated with money. It said the alleged career-related and reputational injuries had not been shown to be beyond the reach of money damages. The court also relied on Sweigert’s delay: he filed the application more than nine months after filing this action, while the alleged conduct dated back to 2019 and the earlier injunction request had been denied almost three years earlier. Finally, the court found that Sweigert had not shown that the balance of hardships favored him or that the public interest would be served by an injunction.
Disposition
Judge John G. Koeltl denied Sweigert’s application for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not state that the underlying action was dismissed or otherwise finally resolved.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.