Order Denying Injunction Pending Appeal — Vitolo v. Guzman

Summary

Order in the case of Antonio Vitolo and Jake's Bar and Grill, LLC against Isabella Casillas Guzman, United States District Court Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville, Case No. 3:21-cv-176 (Document 27, filed 05/20/21). It denies Plaintiffs' emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal (Doc. 23). The order states that the four factors for an injunction are identical to those considered in denying Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 24, at 8). It relies on the Court's memorandum opinion denying that motion and is signed /s/ Travis R. McDonough.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
 
AT KNOXVILLE 
 
ANTONIO VITOLO and JAKE’S BAR 
AND GRILL, LLC, 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
 
ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN 
 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
Case No. 3:21-cv-176 
 
Judge Travis R. McDonough 
 
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Antonio Vitolo and Jake’s Bar and Grill, LLC’s emergency 
motion for an injunction pending appeal (Doc. 23).  The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion.  
A party must ordinarily move first in the district court for an order granting an injunction 
while an appeal is pending.  Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1).  If the district court denies the party’s 
motion for an injunction or fails to afford the moving party the requested relief, a motion may 
then be made to the court of appeals or one of its judges.  Fed R. App. P. 8(a)(2). 
“To obtain an injunction, the movant must show that the four factors—the likelihood of 
success on the merits, irreparable harm to the movant, harm to other parties, and the public’s 
interest—support an injunction.”  Reeder v. BSI Fin. Servs., No. 19-5086, 2019 U.S. App. 
LEXIS 33948, at *1–2 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 2019) (citing Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban 
Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002)) (partial citations omitted); see also Catholic 
Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, No. 13-6640, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25936, at *5–6 (6th Cir. 
Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP   Document 27   Filed 05/20/21   Page 1 of 2   PageID #: 221

 
2 
Dec. 31, 2013) (citations omitted).  These factors are identical to those considered by the Court 
in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order.  (Doc. 24, at 8.) 
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the Court’s memorandum opinion denying Plaintiffs’ 
motion for temporary restraining order (see generally Doc. 24), Plaintiffs’ motion for an 
injunction is DENIED.   
SO ORDERED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Travis R. McDonough 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP   Document 27   Filed 05/20/21   Page 2 of 2   PageID #: 222

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.tned.99748.27.0.pdf

Size

133,504 bytes

SHA-256

77ddeb46baa4b158cb569128467a24ac430d5e0b1270f5dd03bb44e249cf693e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.tned.99748.27.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.