Mulkerin v. Papoutsis, 1:25-cv-01776

Mulkerin moves for a temporary restraining order to enjoin application of part of a settlement to her personal claims and to compel preservation/production of records.
The court applies the gateway factors: likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, requiring irreparable harm to be more likely than not.
Mulkerin contends her personal claims are property excluded from her bankruptcy estate as to a Delaware Chancery matter; the court rejects this interpretation.
The Bankruptcy Code defines an estate as comprising all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of filing, including claims existing at filing.
A bankruptcy court already held the Delaware Chancery litigation claims are property of the bankruptcy estate; appellate avenues were available but not pursued.
Mulkerin cannot show irreparable harm because the settlement allegedly does not bind her personal claims, and if it does touch them, relief should be sought in bankruptcy court or on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Mulkerin's personal claims part of the bankruptcy estate?	Mulkerin asserts these claims are personal and excluded.	Court should follow estate-wide coverage under 11 U.S.C. § 541.	Claims are property of the bankruptcy estate.
Does the settlement affect Mulkerin's personal claims?	Settlement binds Mulkerin's personal claims.	Settlement does not bind or impermissibly impact personal claims; any issue is for bankruptcy court or appeal.	Settlement at issue does not support irreparable injury; challenges belong in bankruptcy or appeal.
Whether Mulkerin demonstrated irreparable harm entitling a TRO?	Without a declaratory injunction, her rights would be irreparably harmed.	No irreparable harm given the settlement does not bind her personal claims or can be challenged via bankruptcy process.	No irreparable harm shown.
Jurisdiction and proper avenue to contest the settlement in light of bankruptcy proceedings?	The court should intervene to protect her claims.	Jurisdiction and remedies lie in bankruptcy court or through appeal.	Appropriate avenue is bankruptcy court or appeal; this court lacks proper basis for TRO.

Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting LLC v. Platkin, 133 F.4th 213 (3d Cir. 2025) (irreparable harm must be likely to occur; gateway factor for preliminary relief)
Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (irreparable harm standard for TROs)
In re Emoral, Inc., 740 F.3d 875 (3d Cir. 2014) (personalized analysis does not apply to debtors' claims against successors)