govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_26-cv-00877-0

1 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
 
 
THOMAS L. D’AQUIN 
 
 
 
CIVIL ACTION 
 
VERSUS 
 
 
 
NO: 26-00877 
 
AFTERPAY US SERVICES, LLC 
 
 
 
 
SECTION: T (1) 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 Before the Court is a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (R. Doc. 3) filed by Plaintiff 
Thomas L. D’Aquin. Having reviewed the M otion, the Complaint , and the applicable law, the 
Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for the reasons set forth below. 
I. BACKGROUND 
 Defendant Afterpay US Services, LLC, is a financial technology company that provides 
“Buy Now, Pay Later ” services allowing consumers to purchase products in interest -free 
installments, with a certain amount paid upfront and applying late fees if scheduled payments are 
missed.1 This action stems from Plaintiff ’s allegations that Defendant failed to “restore account 
access” and imposed “ shifting conditions ” despite Plain tiff having “ paid multiple balances in 
reliance on Defendant ’s representations.” R. Doc. 1, p. 1. Plaintiff asserts Defendant provided 
“evasive responses and no meaningful phone support.” Id. He asserts causes of action for breach 
of contract, promissory estoppel, unfair trade practices, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act. 
Id. He provides screenshots of communications with Defendant and his account balances. R. Doc. 
1-1. 
In his Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 
 
1 https://www.afterpay.com/en-US accessed on April 30, 2026. 

2 
 
Procedure 65, Plaintiff asserts “ongoing harm” and alleges “ Defendant failed to restore access 
despite compliance and provides no clear criteria. ” R. Doc. 3, p. 1. He seeks injunctive relief 
demanding that Defendant “[r]estore [his] account OR provide clear reinstatement criteria.” Id. 
II. LAW and ANALYSIS 
 Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a district court “may issue a 
temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party only if (a) specific 
facts in an affidavit or 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 notice and the reasons why it 
should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). A preliminary injunction may only be issued “on 
notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). 
“Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are extraordinary forms of relief 
and require plaintiffs to carry an onerous burden.” Cajun Servs. Unlimited, LLC v. Benton Energy 
Serv. Co., No. CV 17-491, 2020 WL 10486334, at *4 (E.D. La. Oct. 16, 2020) (quoting Scott v. S. 
Elec. Supply Co., No. 3:13-CV-119, 2013 WL 12108746, at *1 (N.D. Miss. May 14, 2013) (citing 
Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987); Trinity USA Operating, LLC v. Barker, 844 
F. Supp. 2d 781, 785 (S.D. Miss. 2011))). “Temporary restraining orders function to preserve the 
status quo by preventing irreparable harm until the preliminary injunction hearing.” Id. (citing 
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 
439 (1974)). 
 It is well-settled that to obtain a temporary restraining order, the movant must demonstrate 
all four of the following elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, (2) a 
substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) the threatened injury 

3 
 
outweighs any harm that will result to the non -movant if the injunction is granted, and (4) the 
injunction will not disservice the public interest. Ridgely v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 512 
F.3d 727, 734 (5th Cir. 2008). A temporary restraining order is not warranted when the movant 
fails to demonstrate irreparable injury. See, e.g., Sanders v. Nat’l Missionary Baptist Convention 
of Am. , No. CV 12- 2404, 2012 WL 12874264, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 3, 2012). “Ultimately, 
temporary restraining orders are extraordinary relief and are rarely issued.” Id. (citing Treen v. 
Brown, No. 10-3359, 2010 WL 4027714, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2010)) (internal quotation marks 
omitted). The decision to grant or deny a temporary restraining order, like that of a preliminary 
injunction, is within the sound discretion of the district court. See Miss. Power & Light Co. v. 
United Gas Pipeline Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). “ The party requesting a temporary 
restraining order must clear the high hurdle of demonstrating that it meets the requirements of Rule 
65(b) and the four-element standard.” Cajun Servs. Unlimited, 2020 WL 10486334, at *4. 
 Here, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form o f an order mandating that Defendant 
restore access to his account or provide him with “criteria” to do so. R. Doc. 3, p. 1. However, he 
has not provided an affidavit or verified complaint clearly showing that immediate and irreparable 
injury, loss, or damage will result before Defendant can be heard in opposition; nor has he asserted, 
much less certified, any efforts he has made to give notice to Defendant and provide reasons why 
such notice should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b). Moreover, other than bare bones 
assertions and demands, Plaintiff has pointed to no facts or law to support a finding that there is a 
substantial likelihood he would prevail on the merits, that there is a substantial threat of irreparable 
injury if the injunction is not granted, that the threatened injury outweighs any harm that will result 
to Defendant if the injunction is granted, or that the injunction will not disservice the public 
interest. See Ridgely, 512 F.3d at 734. 

4 
 
Accordingly, 
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (R. Doc. 3) is 
DENIED. 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of April 2026. 
 
 
 
_______________________________________ 
GREG GERARD GUIDRY 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Passage view · GavelSight