DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
ALFRED LEVITT, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
STEPHEN INDELICATO and JENNILEE 
BETH ROBINSON, in personam, and M/V 
ST. SOMEWHERE, in rem, 
Defendants 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Case No. 3:22-cv-0055 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ORDER 
 
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Alfred Levitt’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary 
Restraining Order. (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons stated below, the application is denied.  
 
On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff Alfred Levitt (“Levitt”) filed his complaint, pro se,  against 
Stephen Indelicato and Jennillee Beth Robinson, in personam, and M/V St. Somewhere, in 
rem,  (collectively “Defendants”) alleging claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and 
unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1.) On September 13, 2022, Levitt filed the instant application 
for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF No. 7.) In his application, Levitt alleges that 
on Monday September 12, 2022, Indelicato and “two of his friends” boarded the M/V St. 
Somewhere without consent, where Levitt is currently housed, and “violently caused [Levitt] 
physical injuries forcing [Levitt] to leave the vessel bleeding and bruised.” Id. at 2. Levitt 
further alleges that the individuals involved “stated their intention to tow [the vessel] to 
Crown Bay Marina and dump off all items belonging to [Levitt].” Id. Levitt requests that the 
Court issue a TRO to prevent Defendants and their agents from “boarding or occupying” the 
M/V St. Somewhere. Id. at 1. Levitt argues that such relief is necessary “to maintain the status 
quo” and to “preserve evidence and physical safety.” Id. at 3. The application was filed ex 
parte.  
 
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the issuance of temporary 
restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Courts apply a  four-
factor test when considering whether to grant preliminary relief. See Hope v. Warden York 
Cty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 319-20 (3d Cir. 2020). Specifically, a movant must demonstrate:   
Case: 3:22-cv-00055-RAM-RM   Document #: 10   Filed: 09/21/22   Page 1 of 2
Levitt v. Indelicato et al. 
Case No. 3:22-cv-0055 
Order 
Page 2 of 2 
 
(1) that they are reasonably likely to prevail eventually in the litigation and 
(2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury without relief. If these two 
threshold showings are made the District Court then considers, to the extent 
relevant, (3) whether an injunction would harm the [defendants] more than 
denying relief would harm the plaintiffs and (4) whether granting relief would 
serve the public interest. 
Id.  at 319–20 (citing K.A. ex rel. Ayers v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 
2013)).  
 
However, under Rule 65(b), a court may issue a TRO without notice to the adverse 
party only if the moving party provides “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint 
clearly show[ing] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition” and “the movant's attorney 
certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be 
required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Great care must be taken prior to granting a TRO without 
notice. “As the Supreme Court has observed, ‘our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the 
notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has 
been granted [to] both sides of a dispute.’” Hope, 972 F.3d at 320 (quoting Hope v. Warden 
York Cnty. Prison, 956 F.3d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 2020)); see also Phillips v. Charles Schreiner 
Bank, 894 F.2d 127, 131 (5th Cir.1990) (finding that the notice requirement “is more than a 
mere procedural formality”).  
 
Levitt, proceeding pro se, has failed to certify in writing what efforts, if any, have been 
made to give notice of the motion to Defendants. Attached to the motion are two summonses 
addressed to Indelicato and Robinson, respectively. However, the summonses are unsigned 
and otherwise bear no evidence of any attempt of service. Levitt similarly has not asserted 
any argument as to why notice should not be required. Granting a TRO at this juncture is not 
appropriate. 
 
Accordingly, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that Alfred Levitt’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining 
Order, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.  
Dated: September 21, 2022  
 
 
 
/s/Robert A. Molloy ________ 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
         Chief Judge 
Case: 3:22-cv-00055-RAM-RM   Document #: 10   Filed: 09/21/22   Page 2 of 2