Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Grischkan et al, No. 1:2006cv00264 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2006)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order Denying Defendants/Appellants' Motion to Stay Execution of the Bankruptcy Court's Default Judgment and Denying Defendants/Appellants' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Related Doc # 4)(Signed by Judge Lesley Wells on 2/3/06)(C, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Case 1:06-cv-00264-LW Document 6 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 1 of 2 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Grischkan et al Doc. 6 UNI-TED STATES DIS-TRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION 1.:, r r - t - v * v ,'r!t 1': I C;:;*J L .. ...................................................... : CASE NO. 1:06 CV 264 IN RE: GLORIA GRISCHKAN MORTGAGE ELECTROhllC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., GLORIA GRISCHKAN and MICHAEL GRISCHKAN, NIEIMORANDUM OF OPINION AhlD ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS1 MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF -THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDAIVTSIAPPELLANTS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING DefendantslAppellants UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE LESLEY WELLS This matter is before the Court on defendants-appellants' motion to stay execution of the bankruptcy court's default judgment and motion for temporary restraining order enjoining plaintiff-appellee from proceeding with the eviction of defendants-appellants froni their home. This Court has reviewed all of the defendants-appellants' submissions to this Court, including its motion to stay and for a temporary restraining order and United States Bankruptcy Judge Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren's Memorandum of Opinion and Orders granting judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee and denying defendantslappellantsl motion to vacate and for temporary restraining order. Upon review of such materials, and in view of the requirements for granting a temporary Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00264-LW Document 6 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 2 of 2 restraining order under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court denies defendant-appellant's request. Defendants-appellants' have not addressed or satisfied the requirements of Rule 65. Defendants-appellants' have not certified that they have attempted to provide notice to the plaintiff-appellees' as required by Rule 65. Nor have defendantsis appellants' shown that irreparable harrr~ imminent or that they have meritorious grounds for reversal of Bankruptcy Judge Morgenstern-Clarren'sjudgment in this matter. Indeed defendants-appellants' have not even referenced the four requirements for granting the injunctive relief they request. See Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. Of Ohio v. ColumbiaIHCA Healthcare Corp., I10 F.3d 318, 322 (6thCir. 1997) (setting forth four requirements). Accordingly, defendants-appellants' motion for emergency stay and for a temporary restraining order is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. a' S UNITED S ~ E DISTRI JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
