Aasmund M. Godal v. Candi J. Fulop

S.D. New York

Aasmund M. Godal v. Candi J. Fulop

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 15, 2025·No. 7:25-cv-09769·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AASMUND M. GODAL, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-9769 (JGLC) CANDI J. FULOP, ORDER Defendant.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge: Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a proposed unsigned order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. ECF No. 5. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of his case or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F. 3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543, 547 (2000). Preliminary injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff’s submissions do not demonstrate: (1) a

likelihood of success on the merits, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. In particular, Plaintiff fails to allege a federal cause of action that the Court deems likely to succeed, given his reliance on a federal regulation that does not confer a private right of action. See Rabin v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-CV-402 (JMA) (SIL), 2024 WL 3344548, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2024), appeal dismissed sub nom. Rabin v. United States Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 24-2971, 2025 WL 1364382 (2d Cir. May 9, 2025) (citing Thomas v. Catlin, 141 F. App'x 673, 674 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The district court properly held [plaintiff] failed to state a claim under 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.101, et seq., the federal statute regulating research involving human subjects, because the statute does not confer a private right of action.”)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for an order to show cause, ECF No. 5, is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

Dated: December 15, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AASMUND M. GODAL, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-9769 (JGLC) CANDI J. FULOP, ORDER Defendant.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge: Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a proposed unsigned order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. ECF No. 5. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of his case or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F. 3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543, 547 (2000). Preliminary injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff’s submissions do not demonstrate: (1) a

likelihood of success on the merits, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. In particular, Plaintiff fails to allege a federal cause of action that the Court deems likely to succeed, given his reliance on a federal regulation that does not confer a private right of action. See Rabin v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-CV-402 (JMA) (SIL), 2024 WL 3344548, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2024), appeal dismissed sub nom. Rabin v. United States Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 24-2971, 2025 WL 1364382 (2d Cir. May 9, 2025) (citing Thomas v. Catlin, 141 F. App'x 673, 674 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The district court properly held [plaintiff] failed to state a claim under 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.101, et seq., the federal statute regulating research involving human subjects, because the statute does not confer a private right of action.”)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for an order to show cause, ECF No. 5, is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

Dated: December 15, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE United States District Judge

Aasmund M. Godal v. Candi J. Fulop, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Aasmund M. Godal v. Candi J. Fulop (Aasmund M. Godal v. Candi J. Fulop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related