Gil v. Ortiz

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: June 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-04748
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AIDA R. GIL, Plaintiff, 1:25-CV-4748 (LTS) -against- ORDER JUDGE FRANCES ORTIZ, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Aida R. Gil, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order principally asking this Court to stay her pending proceedings before Judge Frances Ortiz of the New York City Civil Court, New York County, Housing Part; Plaintiff alleges that those proceedings are scheduled to take place beginning on July 1, 2025. (ECF 11.) To obtain such immediate preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of her action 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 her 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); Dennis v. K&L Gates LLP, No. 1:20-CV- 9393 (MKV), 2025 WL 902457, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2025). Such immediate 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). Plaintiff’s motion does 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 her favor. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF 11.) The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date. CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF 11.)

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: June 30, 2025 New York, New York

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