MINUTE ENTRY ORDER:

Minute entry for INJUNCTION HEARING before Judge Charles Eskridge on June 26, 2024.

All parties present by video.

Plaintiff Julius Lamunn North present and representing himself pro se.

The Court addressed a number of pending motions brought by Plaintiff.

See Dkts 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9.

The motion to abate proceedings was withdrawn by Plaintiff, upon understanding that prevailing on that motion would moot his previous motion requesting a temporary restraining order to halt foreclosure sale.

See Dkt 2.

The motion was thus DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 7.

The document entitled “Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue” was construed as a motion to remand.

Dkt 8.

Decision was RESERVED pending response from Defendants. Decision on the motion for preliminary injunction was also RESERVED pending response from Defendants.

Dkt 9.

The motion for emergency hearing to stop foreclosure was construed as a motion for temporary restraining order.

Dkt 2.

It was DENIED for reasons stated on the record.

Specifically, it was determined that Plaintiff failed to show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

See Palmer v Waxahachie Independent School District, 579 F3d 502, 506 (5th Cir 2009).

No formal complaint was actually filed to initiate this action.

To the extent that underlying motions filed before the state court can be construed as a complaint, they at best appear to assert a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC §1592e (pertaining to false and misleading representations).

See Dkts 1-5 & 1-6.

Upon review of the FDCPA, nothing suggests that the requested injunctive relief is an available remedy.

See 15 USC §1592k (addressing civil liability).

It was further established and conceded by Plaintiff that he is in substantial arrears on amounts owed on his mortgage, and that he’s unable to make up the amount in arrears.

Plaintiff thus failed to show a claim for relief upon which he has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

It was further determined that Plaintiff failed to show a substantial threat of suffering irreparable injury if the injunction isnt granted.

See Palmer, 579 F3d at 506.

He presented no evidence establishing that money damages wouldn’t provide appropriate relief if he were to prevail in this action.

Beyond this, he conceded that he’s no longer the personal owner of the home, having purported to transfer it to a trust.

See Dkt 6 at 24.

His notice of appearance and filings in this action list his present address at the home of his parents, and he noted that he lives at some times at that address.

Beyond this, Plaintiff appears to be fit, healthy, and not destitute. Nothing in the record otherwise shows a substantial threat of irreparable injury.

The motion to stay foreclosure proceedings was also DENIED for the same reasons.

Dkt 4.

The Court addressed the foreclosure sale. Defendants STIPULATED that reasonable time and access would be allowed to Plaintiff should the foreclosure sale proceed as scheduled and eventually result in his eviction.

Ct Reporter: ERO. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge)

Parties notified. (jmg4) (Entered: 07/02/2024)