From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v Fitzgerald

United States District Court, Central District of California
Oct 28, 2021
2:20-CV-10713-MWF(RAOx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-CV-10713-MWF(RAOx)

10-28-2021

JANE DOE NOS. 1-10, Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL S. FITZGERALD Defendant.


PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD United States District Judge

After consideration of Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 1-10's Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Daniel S. Fitzgerald (Docket No. 58), the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for a TRO but issued an Order to Show Cause to Defendant regarding a preliminary injunction. Defendant Fitzgerald filed his Opposition to the Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 68), and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Docket No. 70).

After consideration of all papers filed herein, the records of the case, the arguments at the hearing on October 26, 2021, and pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, The Court FINDS that Defendant Daniel S. Fitzgerald, or someone acting at his express direction, created YouTube videos, created social media accounts, and circulated copies of a flyer throughout Cabo, Mexico that, collectively, identified Jane Doe Nos. 4-6 and made disparaging attacks on their character and reputation.

The Court further FINDS that his motivation for doing so was not to collect information relevant to this action but to harass and impugn Jane Does from exercising their litigation rights and dissuading other victims from coming forward.

The Court further FINDS that Defendant Daniel S. Fitzgerald harassed and threatened Jane Doe No. 5 and her family in Cabo, Mexico.

Now, therefore, Defendant Daniel S. Fitzgerald and his agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them who receive notice of this Preliminary Injunction by personal service or otherwise, are hereby ORDERED and ENJOINED as follows during the pendency of this litigation:

1. From publishing, posting, or otherwise publicly circulating information that personally identifies Plaintiffs, either by name or description.

2. From directly or indirectly making any harassing or threatening communications to anyone directly connected with this lawsuit, including but not limited to Jane Doe Nos. 1-10, or any lawyers representing Jane Doe Nos. 1-10.

3. From maintaining less than 100 feet of physical distance between himself and any Jane Doe, except during a court hearing, deposition, mediation, or other event in this litigation.

4. From performing any of these actions through another person or by use of a subterfuge.

5. Defendant Daniel S. Fitzgerald is ORDERED to remove the video identified in the record from YouTube and to remove any similar videos from any social media platform. Defendant Daniel S. Fitzgerald is likewise ORDERED to deactivate the social media or email accounts identified in the video.

This Preliminary Injunction shall not be construed to prohibit communications between the counsel of record for the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Doe v Fitzgerald

United States District Court, Central District of California
Oct 28, 2021
2:20-CV-10713-MWF(RAOx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Doe v Fitzgerald

Case Details

Full title:JANE DOE NOS. 1-10, Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL S. FITZGERALD Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Oct 28, 2021

Citations

2:20-CV-10713-MWF(RAOx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2021)

Citing Cases

Williams v. P.I. Props. No. 42, L.P.

“Attorneys appearing before the federal courts in the Central District of California must adhere to…