Derek Keith Williams Individually and as Trustee of DKW Trust; Sokhara Kim v. Chesapeake Holdings WV VI, LLC; M&T Bank, N.A.; Michael C Bartolotti; Michael J. Lewis; Kevin J. McConville; Deputy William Verrastro; Hon. Timothy J. Walker, J.C.C.; Hon. Gina C. Capone; Hon. Camille S. Linson; Frances Fredericks; Robert V. Tendy; Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Jerome H. Powell, Philip N. Jefferson, Michael S. Barr, Michelle W. Bowman, Lisa D. Cook, Adriana D. Kugler, Christopher J. Waller); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-07290
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEREK KEITH WILLIAMS INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF DKW TRUST; SOKHARA KIM, Plaintiffs, -against- CHESAPEAKE HOLDINGS WV VI, LLC; M&T BANK, N.A.; MICHAEL C BARTOLOTTI; MICHAEL J. LEWIS; KEVIN J. MCCONVILLE; DEPUTY WILLIAM VERRASTRO; HON. TIMOTHY J. WALKER, 25-CV-7290 (LTS) J.C.C.; HON. GINA C. CAPONE; HON. ORDER CAMILLE S. LINSON; FRANCES FREDERICKS; DEFENDANT; ROBERT V. TENDY; FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK; FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS (JEROME H. POWELL, PHILIP N. JEFFERSON, MICHAEL S. BARR, MICHELLE W. BOWMAN, LISA D. COOK, ADRIANA D. KUGLER, CHRISTOPHER J. WALLER); OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. To obtain such relief, Plaintiffs must show: (1) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of their 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 their 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 (2d Cir. 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). Plaintiffs’ submissions do not demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction of the claims or jurisdiction over the defendants, the nature of many of the claims, or that the claims have a

proper foundation in applicable law. Therefore injunctive relief will not be granted because Plaintiffs’ submissions do not enable the Court to conclude that they have demonstrated: (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 their favor. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order are denied. The Court will issue a more extensive explanatory order at a later date. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ requests for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order are denied. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an

appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: September 8, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge