Plaintiffs’ Response Regarding Pending PI Motion — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP · Doc. 28 · 2021-05-20 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
 
 
JAKE’S BAR AND GRILL, LLC, and 
ANTONIO VITOLO, 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 3:21-cv-176 
 
 
ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN,  
 
Defendant. 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE REGARDING PENDING 
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION 
 
In this Court’s memorandum opinion denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a 
temporary restraining order, this Court directed Plaintiffs to tell this Court “whether 
they wish to persist in their motion for a preliminary injunction.” Dkt. 24:29. 
Plaintiffs do want to proceed with their preliminary injunction motion, and 
respectfully request a prompt briefing schedule on that motion. Plaintiffs propose 
that this Court give Defendant a short period to file any supplemental briefing, a 
short period for Plaintiffs to file a reply, and then rule on the preliminary injunction 
motion on the briefs, without another hearing.  
Given the time-sensitive nature of this case and the basis for this Court’s TRO 
decision, Plaintiffs have immediately appealed this Court’s order denying a TRO and 
have filed an emergency motion for an injunction with the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs’ 
primary position, as explained in their motion to the Sixth Circuit, is that the Sixth 
Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP   Document 28   Filed 05/20/21   Page 1 of 3   PageID #: 223

 
- 2 - 
 
Circuit can grant an injunction equivalent to that sought by Plaintiffs in their 
preliminary injunction motion—requiring Defendant to process all applications in the 
order they were received, without regard to the race and gender of the applicant. 
However, Plaintiffs acknowledge that this Court has not yet ruled on the preliminary 
injunction motion, and Defendant has suggested that it may want to present 
additional briefing in defense. Dkt. 18:8–9 n. 4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs proposed to 
the Sixth Circuit, in the alternative, that it could instead enjoin Defendant from 
disbursing any funds until this Court rules on the preliminary injunction motion.  
Plaintiffs of course do not know which route the Sixth Circuit will take, or what 
Defendant’s position will be. If Defendant is willing to stipulate that the Sixth Circuit 
can resolve the entire injunction question now, without further briefing in this Court, 
then there is no need to proceed with the preliminary injunction motion until the 
Sixth Circuit rules on Plaintiffs’ emergency motion. If not, however, given the time 
sensitive nature of this case, this Court should proceed to schedule the preliminary 
injunction now, as proposed above. Plaintiffs will of course promptly notify this Court 
of any action by the Sixth Circuit relevant to the preliminary injunction motion.   
Dated: May 20, 2021 
WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY 
Rick Esenberg 
rick@will-law.org 
Daniel P. Lennington 
dan@will-law.org 
/s/ Luke N. Berg 
Luke N. Berg 
luke@will-law.org 
330 E. Kilbourn Ave., Suite 725 
Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP   Document 28   Filed 05/20/21   Page 2 of 3   PageID #: 224

 
- 3 - 
 
Milwaukee, WI 53202 
Phone: (414) 727-9455  
Fax: (414)727-6385 
 
 
/s/ Matthew J. McClanahan 
Matthew J. McClanahan (BPR #036867) 
McClanahan & Winston, PC 
PO Box 51907 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37950 
Telephone:  (865) 347-3921 
Fax:  (865) 444-0786 
Email: matt@tennadvocate.com 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP   Document 28   Filed 05/20/21   Page 3 of 3   PageID #: 225

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.tned.99748.28.0.pdf

Size

90,465 bytes

SHA-256

7a0310b5a0bd7654c6c224694aee03afa92289bfb6b734ea3e863c6918cfaaa6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.tned.99748.28.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.