Baker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., 3:16-cv-00124

Plaintiff Sheri L. Baker sued JPMorgan Chase alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), centered on a disputed delinquent mortgage account appearing on her credit report for property at 165 Timber Ridge Drive, Nashville.
Baker disputed the account with credit reporting agencies; Chase verified the balance and Baker alleges Chase refused to correct the report or accept a purported debt discharge by the U.S. Treasury.
The court dismissed most claims on a prior motion to dismiss, leaving only a single claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) that Chase failed to reasonably investigate after receiving notice from a CRA.
Baker moved for a temporary restraining order / preliminary injunction to stop a Chase foreclosure sale scheduled for May 25, 2017.
The magistrate judge recommended denial, finding (1) FCRA does not provide for injunctive relief to private litigants to stop foreclosures and (2) the requested injunction lacks the necessary nexus to the narrow statutory FCRA claim.
The magistrate also noted procedural defects: Baker failed to support the motion with an affidavit or verified complaint as required by Rule 65.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baker is entitled to a TRO/PI under FCRA to enjoin foreclosure	Baker argued likelihood of success on her FCRA claim and harm from foreclosure justify injunctive relief	Chase argued FCRA provides damages only and does not authorize private injunctive relief to halt foreclosure; no nexus between FCRA claim and foreclosure	Denied — FCRA does not permit private parties injunctive relief to stop foreclosure and the requested injunction is unrelated to the statutory claim
Whether Baker met procedural requirements for a Rule 65 injunction	Baker submitted a motion but did not provide an affidavit or verified complaint substantiating likelihood of success or irreparable harm	Chase pointed to Baker’s failure to comply with Rule 65 and lack of evidence supporting the preliminary injunction factors	Denied — motion lacked required affidavit/verification and failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm

Clemons v. Board of Educ., 228 F.2d 853 (6th Cir. 1956) (describing TROs and preliminary injunctions as preventive measures)
Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass’n v. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Int’l Typographical Union, 471 F.2d 872 (6th Cir. 1972) (characterizing injunctive relief as extraordinary)
Winter v. Nat'l Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Gonzales v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 225 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2000) (no likelihood of success is usually fatal to injunctive relief)
Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2010) (injunction requires a relationship between the alleged conduct and the harm to be prevented)
Washington v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 199 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.) (private parties cannot obtain injunctive relief under the FCRA)