Tracy Donovan v. Jennifer Hutchins and Jeremy DiPietro

D. Connecticut

Tracy Donovan v. Jennifer Hutchins and Jeremy DiPietro

DecidedNovember 18, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-01094

StatusUnknown

This text of Tracy Donovan v. Jennifer Hutchins and Jeremy DiPietro (Tracy Donovan v. Jennifer Hutchins and Jeremy DiPietro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tracy Donovan v. Jennifer Hutchins and Jeremy DiPietro, (D. Conn. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -------------------------------- x TRACY DONOVAN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : Civil No. 3:25-cv-1094 (AWT) JENNIFER HUTCHINS and : JEREMY DIPIETRO, : : Defendants. : : : -------------------------------- x ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND RELATED MOTIONS To demonstrate that she is entitled to injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the moving party must show “(1) irreparable harm; (2) either a likelihood of success on the merits or both serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships decidedly favoring the moving party; and (3) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.” N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed’n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32, 37 (2d Cir. 2018). The court has reviewed the plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief and the papers filed in support of the motions, the defendants’ objections to the plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, and the briefing with respect to the pending motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Based upon its review of those motions and related papers,

the court concludes that the plaintiff has not established either a likelihood of success on the merits or 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. The following pending motions are hereby DENIED: 1. Motion for Request that Complaint and Injunction be an Emergency Order (ECF No. 3); 2. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 39); 3. Motion to Modify Scheduling Order for Limited Discovery Regarding Warrant Affidavit (ECF No. 59); 4. Conditional Motion to Stay Dismissal and Retain Limited

Jurisdiction Over Seized Property Pending Criminal Proceedings (ECF No. 66); 5. Renewed Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 70); 6. Motion to Shorten Time for Response (ECF No. 71); and 7. Motion to Shorten Time for Response to Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 72). It is so ordered. Dated this 18th day of November 2025, at Hartford, Connecticut.

___ /s/AWT Alvin W. Thompson United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -------------------------------- x TRACY DONOVAN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : Civil No. 3:25-cv-1094 (AWT) JENNIFER HUTCHINS and : JEREMY DIPIETRO, : : Defendants. : : : -------------------------------- x ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND RELATED MOTIONS To demonstrate that she is entitled to injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the moving party must show “(1) irreparable harm; (2) either a likelihood of success on the merits or both serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships decidedly favoring the moving party; and (3) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.” N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed’n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32, 37 (2d Cir. 2018). The court has reviewed the plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief and the papers filed in support of the motions, the defendants’ objections to the plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, and the briefing with respect to the pending motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Based upon its review of those motions and related papers,

the court concludes that the plaintiff has not established either a likelihood of success on the merits or 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. The following pending motions are hereby DENIED: 1. Motion for Request that Complaint and Injunction be an Emergency Order (ECF No. 3); 2. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 39); 3. Motion to Modify Scheduling Order for Limited Discovery Regarding Warrant Affidavit (ECF No. 59); 4. Conditional Motion to Stay Dismissal and Retain Limited

Jurisdiction Over Seized Property Pending Criminal Proceedings (ECF No. 66); 5. Renewed Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 70); 6. Motion to Shorten Time for Response (ECF No. 71); and 7. Motion to Shorten Time for Response to Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 72). It is so ordered. Dated this 18th day of November 2025, at Hartford, Connecticut.

___ /s/AWT Alvin W. Thompson United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tracy Donovan v. Jennifer Hutchins and Jeremy DiPietro, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tracy-donovan-v-jennifer-hutchins-and-jeremy-dipietro-ctd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack