WEAVER v. SCHIAVO US LLP LLC FSB CVI LCF (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Everette Weaver, pro se, appeals the district court's order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction, entry of default judgment, and other relief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We lack jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion for default judgment. See In re Wills Lines, Inc., 227 F.2d 509, 511 (2d Cir. 1955). Nor do we have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals from the denial of motions for a declaration that the mortgage assignments were void; orders directing defendants to make changes to Weaver's credit history and directing the county clerk to expunge documents from property records; or a judicial referral of Weaver's claims for a criminal investigation. See In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y., Inc., 745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014) (noting that an appealable final order “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment”). Accordingly, insofar as Weaver appeals from these aspects of the district court's order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 2009). “District courts may ordinarily grant preliminary injunctions when the party seeking the injunction demonstrates (1) that he or she will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and (2) either (a) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits, or (b) that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, and that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party.” Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Irreparable harm is “the single most important prerequisite” for relief. Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court properly denied a preliminary injunction because Weaver provided no evidence that he would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.

We have considered all of Weaver's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court in part and DISMISS the appeal in part.