“[f]ailure to demonstrate irreparable harm is a sufficient ground to deny a[n ] injunction.”
How later courts described this case
- “[f]ailure to demonstrate irreparable harm is a sufficient ground to deny a[n ] injunction.”
- “[i]rreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law, typically because its injuries cannot be fully compensated through an award of damages.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SIMBARASHE GWISAI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No. 4:25-CV-502 HEA
)
JEREMIAH PETER, display name: )
Common Sense With Sall, )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Simbarashe Gwisai’s Ex Parte
Motion for Temporary Injunction. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff Gwisai is proceeding in
this matter pro se without the assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Injunction will be denied.
Background
On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a two-page Complaint against Defendant
Jeremiah Peter (display name: Common Sense With Sall) (hereinafter “Defendant
Peter”) under the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the original creator and copyright owner of edited
and narrated video content published on the Court Watchers and Court Archives
channels on YouTube. Plaintiff avers that although the source material for his videos
is “public court footage,” he has created “a transformative derivative work by
selecting, editing, arranging, and providing original commentary and stylistic
elements that reflect unique create expression.” (ECF No. 1 at 1, ¶ 6). Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Peter “uploaded a video” that contained long, unaltered segments
taken directly from Plaintiff’s edited work without permission or license. Plaintiff
does not allege when this occurred. According to Plaintiff, YouTube removed the
allegedly infringing video, “but unless court action is shown within 10 business days,
the video may be reinstated.” (Id. at ¶ 10).
Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court declaring Defendant Peter’s actions as
copyright infringement. He also seeks a temporary and permanent injunction
prohibiting further use or distribution of the infringing content, as well as an award
of statutory and actual damages.
Discussion
Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. In other
words, he is asking that the Court enter a temporary injunction against Defendant
Peter without giving notice to him. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do provide
for the entry of a temporary restraining order without notice to the opposing side if
certain procedures are followed and factual circumstances are met. Rule 65(b)(1)
provides as follow:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or
oral notice to the adverse party or its attorneys only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly
show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage
will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard
in opposition, and
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to
give the notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
Plaintiff fails to meet a number of the requirements for the entry of an ex parte
temporary restraining order. First, not only is Plaintiff’s Complaint not verified, but
it is also not signed. On this ground alone, the motion will be denied. Second, there
is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff has attempted to give Defendant Peter
notice, and he has not explained why notice should not be required. Without such
certification, the Court will not enter an ex parte temporary injunction.
Finally, there is nothing in the record that shows Plaintiff will suffer
irreparable harm if a temporary injunction is not entered. An injunction is an
extraordinary remedy that is never awarded as of right. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 27 (2008). In determining whether to grant a temporary
restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a district court applies “a flexible
consideration of (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) balancing
this harm with any injury an injunction would inflict on other interested parties; (3)
the probability that the moving party would succeed on the merits; and (4) the effect
on the public interest.” St. Louis Effort for AIDS v. Huff, 782 F.3d 1016, 1021 (8th
Cir. 2015); see also Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113
(8th Cir. 1981). “None of these factors by itself is determinative; rather, in each case
the four factors must be balanced to determine whether they tilt toward or away from
granting a preliminary injunction.” West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., 799
F.2d 1219, 1222 (8th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the four Dataphase factors weigh in favor
of the entry of a temporary restraining order. Importantly, Plaintiff has not
adequately shown irreparable harm. Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Tr. v. Cori, 924 F.3d
1004, 1009 (8th Cir. 2019) (“[f]ailure to demonstrate irreparable harm is a sufficient
ground to deny a[n ] injunction.”) (quoted case omitted). Merely stating that he will
suffer irreparable harm is not enough. Plaintiff must show or explain what the harm
to him will be and why an award of damages would not suffice. Gen. Motors Corp.
v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[i]rreparable harm
occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law, typically because its injuries
cannot be fully compensated through an award of damages.”).
For all of these reasons, the Court will not hold an ex parte injunction hearing,
and Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Injunction will be denied. Further,
Plaintiff will be required to physically sign his Complaint and resubmit it for filing.1
1Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other
paper must be signed . . . by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
Further, Local Rule 2.11 recognizes a “person’s name on a signature block” as a signature only if
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff Simbarashe Gwisai’s Ex Parte Motion
for Temporary Injunction is DENIED. [ECF No. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than Monday, April 28, 2025,
Plaintiff Simbarashe Gwisai shall submit a signed version of his Complaint for filing
that is consistent with the terms of this Opinion, Memorandum, and Order. Failure
to do so will result in the Court striking Plaintiff's Complaint and will result in
dismissal of this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the future, all documents submitted by
Plaintiff shall be signed or the documents will be returned to Plaintiff without filing.
Dated this 16" day of April, 2025.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
that person made “[a]n authorized filing . . . through [that] person’s electronic filing account.”
E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.11. Plaintiff is not an attorney, and he is not authorized to file electronically
through the Court’s electronic case filing system. Therefore, all documents he files with the Court
must be physically signed. /d. Links to this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are available on the Court’s Internet website, http://www.moed.uscourts.gov.