MOYE v SODEXO et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
STEPHANIE ANDREA MOYE, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No.: 5:26-cv-300-CAR
:
SODEXO LLC EAST, JENNIFER 	:
DECASTRO, and RAY DECASTRO, 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER TO RECAST COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING OR DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE MOTIONS
On July 20, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Stephanie Andrea Moye sued Defendants Sodexo
LLC East, her former employer; Jennifer Decastro, an alleged human resources agent; and
Ray Decastro, an alleged cybersecurity fraud agent; asserting federal law employment
discrimination claims against Defendant Sodexo and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
(“CFAA”) claims against all Defendants for allegedly hacking her electronic devices and
online accounts.1 Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 2]; “Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint” [Doc. 4];
“Emergency” 	“Petition 	for 	Stalking 	Temporary 	Protective 	Order” 	[sic] 	[Doc. 	5];
“Emergency Motion to Submit Supplemental Digital Evidence” [Doc. 6]; “Motion to
1 Doc. 1.
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 14

2
Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Georgia” [Doc. 7]; “Emergency Motion for a
Two-Week Extension of Time to Serve Summons and Request for Third-Party Subpoena
Issuance” [Doc. 12]; “Motion for an Emergency Order to Sever Fraudulent Business
Account and Grant Injunctive Relief” [Doc. 15]; and “Motion to Correct the Record,”
requesting the Court to order the Clerk of Court to change her claims’ “designation” on
the “administrative docket” [Doc. 16].
For the 	reasons explained 	below, 	Plaintiff’s pro se 	pleadings constitute 	an
impermissible shotgun pleading; accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s pleadings
[Doc. 1] and ORDERS her to file a recast complaint within 21 days of this Order’s date
as directed below, which will supersede her original pleadings. Any recast complaint
MUST be filed in accordance with the directives contained in this Order. If Plaintiff fails
to respond within 21 days, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
As a result, the Court DISMISSES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
IFP, Motion to Supplement, Motion to Transfer Venue, “Emergency Motion for a Two-
Week Extension of Time to Serve Summons and Request for Third-Party Subpoena
Issuance,” and “Motion to Correct the Record” [Docs. 2, 4, 7, 12, & 16]; and the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s “Emergency” “Petition for Stalking Temporary Protective Order”
[sic], “Emergency Motion to Submit Supplemental Digital Evidence,” and “Motion for an
Emergency Order to Sever Fraudulent Business Account and Grant Injunctive Relief”
[Docs. 5, 6, & 15].
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 14

3
Defendant Sodexo is not required to respond to any recast complaint until the
Court reviews it for compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and orders
Defendant Sodexo to file an answer or other responsive pleading.
I. Motion to Proceed IFP
On July 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, declaring that
she was unable to pay this proceeding’s costs, but on August 19, 2026, she paid this
action’s $405.00 filing fee.2 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES her Motion [Doc. 2] as
moot.
II. Order to Recast Complaint
A. Shotgun Pleading
A complaint that violates either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is a “shotgun pleading.”3 Shotgun pleadings may (1) “contain[] multiple
counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts[;]” (2) contain
“conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause
of action[;]” (3) fail to separate each cause of action or claim for relief into a separate count;
and/or (4) “assert[] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which
2 Doc. 2.
3 Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a
complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Under Rule 10(b), “[a] party must state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each
limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances[,]” and “if doing so would promote clarity, each
claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count[.]” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 10(b).
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 14

4
of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants
the claim is brought against.”4 In sum, “[t]he unifying characteristic of all types of
shotgun pleadings is that they fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another,
to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon
which each claim rests.”5
Plaintiff has filed two complaints alleging different claims and facts:6 (1) a “Pro Se
7” form “Complaint for Employment Discrimination[,]”dated July 18, 2026, with an
addendum (“Form Complaint”);7 and (2) a non-form “Original Complaint,” dated July
20, 2026 (“Original Complaint”).8 She also attached two exhibits.9 Both complaints assert
federal law claims against Defendants Sodexo LLC East, Plaintiff’s former employer;
Jennifer Decastro, an alleged human resources agent; and Ray Decastro, an alleged
cybersecurity fraud agent.10 The Form Complaint appears to assert claims for race, color,
and gender/sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”);
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”);
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”);
interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”); and
4 Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321-23 (footnotes omitted).
5 Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323 (footnote omitted).
6 Doc. 1.
7 Id. at 1-8.
8 Id. at 9-19.
9 Doc 1-1 (EEOC Notice of Right to Sue); Doc. 1-2 (Plaintiff’s Letter to EEOC).
10 Doc. 1 at 2, 7, 9, 10, 14.
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 14

5
unauthorized computer access, data destruction, and interception of communications
under the CFAA.11 But the Original Complaint asserts only ADEA, FMLA, and CFAA
claims,12 and it contains “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all
preceding 	counts[,]” 	contains 	many 	“conclusory, 	vague, 	and 	immaterial” 	factual
allegations that are “not obviously connected to any particular cause of action[,]” and
fails to separate each cause of action or claim for relief into a separate count.13 Also, the
two complaints contain different factual allegations and requests for relief.14 As a result,
Plaintiff’s pleadings fail “to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against
them and the grounds upon which each claim rests[;]” thus, Plaintiff’s pleadings
constitute an impermissible “shotgun pleading.”15
“A district court has the ‘inherent authority to control its docket and ensure the
prompt resolution of lawsuits,’ which includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on
shotgun 	pleading 	grounds.”16 	But, 	“[i]n 	dismissing 	a 	shotgun 	complaint 	for
noncompliance with Rule 8(a), a district court must give the plaintiff ‘one chance to
remedy such deficiencies.’”17 Therefore, when a party “files a shotgun pleading, the
11 Id. at 1-8. Some sentences appear to be cut off in the form document. See id. at 3 (“Other federal law”
subsection of section “II. Basis for Jurisdiction”); id. at 4 (“Other acts” of subsection “A[,]” subsection “B[,]”
and subsection “D.” of section “III. Statement of Claim”); id. at 6 (section “V. Relief”).
12 Id. at 9-19.
13 Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321-23 (citations omitted).
14 Doc. 1.
15 Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323 (citations omitted); see also Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th
Cir. 2018) (quoting Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323) (same).
16 Vibe Micro, Inc., 878 F.3d at 1295 (quoting Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320).
17 Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1295).
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 5 of 14

6
district court should strike the pleading and instruct [the party] to replead the case—if
[the party] could in good faith make the representations required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(b).”18 This duty applies “even when the other party does not move to strike the
pleading.”19 Thus, rather than dismissing this action, the Court will give Plaintiff, who is
proceeding pro se, one opportunity to remedy these deficiencies.20
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s pleadings [Doc. 1] and ORDERS
Plaintiff to file a recast complaint within 21 days of this Order’s date as directed below.21
As a result, the Court DISMISSES as moot Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Supplement
Complaint,” “Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Georgia,” “Emergency
Motion for a Two-Week Extension of Time to Serve Summons and Request for Third-
Party Subpoena Issuance,” and “Motion to Correct the Record[,]” requesting the Court to
18 Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1357 (quoting Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133 n.113 (11th Cir. 2001)) (cleaned up);
see also Vibe Micro, Inc., 878 F.3d at 1295 (quoting Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1133 n.113) (same). “Implicit in such a
repleading order is the ‘notion that if the plaintiff fails to comply with the court's order—by filing a
repleader with the same deficiency—the court should strike his pleading or, depending on the
circumstances, dismiss his case and consider the imposition of monetary sanctions.’” Jackson, 898 F.3d at
1358 (quoting Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1133).
19 Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1358 (citing Vibe Micro, Inc., 878 F.3d at 1295); see also Fla. Carry, Inc. v. City of Miami
Beach, 564 F. Supp. 3d 1213, 1223 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (“[T]he usual remedy for shotgun pleadings is to strike the
complaint and require amendment.”) (citing Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1357).
20 Vibe Micro, Inc., 878 F.3d at 1295 (“In the special circumstance of non-merits dismissals on shotgun
pleading grounds, [the Eleventh Circuit has] required district courts to sua sponte allow a litigant one
chance to remedy such deficiencies.”) (citations omitted).
21 Once any amended complaint is filed, the Court will not look back to the facts alleged in the original
complaint; the Court will only consider the facts in the amended complaint. Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811
F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding that the filing of an amended pleading renders the previous
pleading a “legal nullity”).
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 6 of 14

7
order the Clerk of Court to change her claims’ “designation” on the “administrative
docket” [Docs. 4, 7, 12, & 16].
B. Directions for Drafting Recast Complaint
In the “statement of claims” section of her recast complaint, Plaintiff must link any
claims she makes to the named defendant. If Plaintiff fails to link the named defendant
to a claim, the claim will be dismissed; if Plaintiff makes no allegations in the body of her
complaint against a named defendant, that defendant will be removed from the action
and dismissed. Plaintiff must provide enough facts to plausibly demonstrate the
defendant’s actions or omissions resulted in the violation of her rights under a specific
law. Plaintiff must identify the named Defendants. It is recommended that, when drafting
her “statement of claims,” Plaintiff list numbered responses to the following questions (to
the extent possible) along with the name of the defendant:
(1) What did the defendant do (or not do) to violate her rights?
(2) When did each action occur?
(3) How was Plaintiff injured as a result of the defendant’s action?
(4) What law did the defendant violate?
In drafting her recast complaint, Plaintiff should take care to comply with Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b).22 To comply with Rule 10(b), Plaintiff must
22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) states “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: . . . a short and plain
statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) states “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances[.]”
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 7 of 14

8
adequately allege factual allegations into numbered paragraphs to sufficiently state a
claim and allow each Defendant to respond to each claim individually. Plaintiff must
separate her causes of action into separate counts and clarify the factual allegations
supporting each claim. Lastly, the Court notifies Plaintiff that she must clearly label and
attach any exhibit to her recast complaint and reference her exhibits in her recast
complaint to show how they relate to her factual allegations and claims.
C. Rule 11 Obligations
Moreover, the Court informs Plaintiff of her obligations under Rule 11 of the
Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure, 	particularly 	Rule 	11(b), 	which 	governs 	her
representations to the Court:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—
whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney
or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,
cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying,
or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
information.23
23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 8 of 14

9
D. Artificial Intelligence
The Court has seen a marked increase in the use of technology such as ChatGPT,
Google Gemini, Claude, Grok, or other generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) services to
prepare and file documents by unrepresented parties, who may not understand fully
their 	pleading 	obligations. 	The 	Court 	cautions 	Plaintiff 	that 	these 	generative AI
technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.
The Court does not prohibit the use of AI, but to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff must review and verify all computer-generated content
(including content from legal blogs and online summaries) to ensure that it is accurate
and complies with Rule 11. To assist Plaintiff in meeting her pleading obligations, the
Court ORDERS the following: In all pleadings, including Plaintiff’s recast complaint,
Plaintiff must include a signed statement fully disclosing the use of AI to assist in the
preparation and drafting of the pleading. In the statement, Plaintiff must certify that
she has verified the accuracy of all facts and all legal authorities cited in the pleading.
Failure 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	paragraph 	will 	result 	in 	sanctions, 	including, 	if
appropriate, dismissal of this lawsuit.
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 9 of 14

10
III. 	Emergency 	Petition 	for 	Stalking 	Temporary 	Protective 	Order 	[Doc. 	5] 	and
Emergency Motion to Submit Supplemental Digital Evidence [Doc. 6]
On August 	10, 	2026, 	Plaintiff 	filed 	an 	“Emergency” 	“Petition 	for 	Stalking
Temporary Protective Order (TPO)[,]”24 requesting the “Superior Court of Bibb County”
grant both “[a]n Emergency TPO ordering [Defendant Jennifer Decastro, Defendant Ray
Decastro, and Chad Levy, her former attorney,] to cease all electronic tracking with their
organization and stay 500 feet away from [her] residence[]” and “[a] Formal Cyber-
Crimes Investigation Referral to FBI Law Enforcement due to the weaponization of
professional cybersecurity tools to execute domestic stalking and witness tampering.”25
Plaintiff alleges Defendants Jennifer Decastro and Ray Decastro along with her former
attorney engaged “in a pattern of corporate retaliation, federal portal tampering, physical
burglary, and cross-carrier digital espionage designed to ruin [her] life and sabotage [her]
active Pro Se federal lawsuit[.]”26 And she attached over 200 pages of exhibits to support
her wide-ranging assertions.27 In addition, on August 10, Plaintiff filed an “Emergency
Motion to Submit Supplemental Digital Evidence[,]” seeking permission to supplement
her “emergency application” with nearly 100 pages of photographs.28
24 Doc. 5.
25 Id. at 1-2, 6. Plaintiff refers to this action as the “federal case anchor.” Id. at 1-2.
26 Id. at 3.
27 See Docs. 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10.
28 Doc. 6; Doc. 6-1 at 1.
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 10 of 14

11
To the extent Plaintiff requests relief from this Court, the Court CONSTRUES her
“Petition for Stalking Temporary Protective Order” as an ex parte Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Rule 65(b)(1) provides as follows:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an
affidavit 	or 	a 	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.29
Plaintiff fails to meet either procedural requirement under Rule 65(b)(1).30 First, Plaintiff’s
pleadings do not constitute a verified complaint,31 and her unverified Motion does not
include an affidavit (or sworn declaration) containing specific facts showing that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result.32 Second, her Motion does
not discuss the matter of notice to the adverse parties.33 In addition, Plaintiff does not
address the four elements required for a TRO.34 Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks
29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
30 See, e.g., Flores v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-24457, 2026 WL 2130655, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2026) (denying motion
for TRO for failure to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)).
31 Doc. 1. Plaintiff includes neither a sworn statement nor a declaration regarding the truth of the factual
allegations. Id. A verified complaint must be sworn or made under penalty of perjury. See Witter v. Bank of
Am., No. 1:07-CV-1344-GET-AJB, 2008 WL 11470984, at *10 (N.D. Ga. May 15, 2008), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:07-CV-1344-GET, 2008 WL 11470997 (N.D. Ga. June 12, 2008) (citing Neal v.
Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Bafford v. Nelson, 241 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1195 (D. Kan. 2002)). A form
Rule 11 certification does not make a complaint verified. See Jonchuck v. Narjem, No. 3:24-CV-120-WWB-
LLL, 2026 WL 2965310, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2026); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 3:20-CV-191-J-
34JBT, 2020 WL 1046825, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020).
32 Doc. 5.
33 Id.
34 Id. Before a court will grant a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), the moving party must
establish that (1) it has a substantial success of likelihood on the merits; (2) it will suffer irreparable injury
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 11 of 14

12
a TRO from this Court, her “Emergency” “Petition for Stalking Temporary Protective
Order” and “Emergency Motion to Submit Supplemental Digital Evidence” are DENIED
[Docs. 5, 6].
IV. Motion for an Emergency Order to Sever Fraudulent Business Account and Grant
Injunctive Relief [Doc. 15]
On September 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Proposed Emergency Order” on an
unfiled “Emergency Motion to Sever Fraudulent Business Account and Grant Injunctive
Relief,” ordering non-party “Meta Platforms, Inc.,” to take various actions regarding her
Facebook and email accounts,35 which she contends have been hacked.36 She also attached
over 200 pages of exhibits.37 The Court CONSTRUES her “Proposed Emergency Order”
as an ex parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) under Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b). Again, Plaintiff’s filing fails to meet either procedural requirement under Rule
65(b)(1) and does not address all four elements required for a TRO. In addition, Plaintiff
did not name Meta as a defendant in this action or assert any claim against Meta;38 thus,
if the relief is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief may inflict on the
nonmoving party; and (4) entry of relief “would not be adverse to the public interest.” KH Outdoor, LLC v.
City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1268 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court is authorized to grant
extraordinary injunctive relief provided by a TRO only if the high standards for such relief have been met.
See Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (injunctive relief is “an extraordinary and drastic
remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to each of the
four prerequisites.”). A TRO or preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy used primarily to preserve the
status quo rather than to grant most or all the substantive relief sought in the complaint. See, e.g., Cate v.
Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983).
35 Doc. 15.
36 See Doc. 15-1 (summarizing her exhibits and “forensic facts”).
37 See Docs. 15-2 to 15-23.
38 Doc. 1.
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 12 of 14

13
the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief against this non-party.39 Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED [Doc. 15].
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	explained 	above, 	Plaintiff’s 	pro 	se 	pleadings 	constitute 	an
impermissible shotgun pleading; accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s pleadings
[Doc. 1] and ORDERS her to file a recast complaint within 21 days of this Order’s date
as directed above, which will supersede her original pleadings. Any recast complaint
MUST be filed in accordance with the directives contained in this Order. If Plaintiff fails
to respond within 21 days, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
As a result, the Court DISMISSES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
IFP, Motion to Supplement, Motion to Transfer Venue, “Emergency Motion for a Two-
Week Extension of Time to Serve Summons and Request for Third-Party Subpoena
39 See In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litig., MDL 878 v. Abbott Lab'ys, 72 F.3d 842, 842–43 (11th Cir. 1995)
(affirming that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue preliminary or permanent
injunction against a non-party); see also Jackson v. Baisden, No. 21-13004-J, 2022 WL 610314, at *1 (11th Cir.
Feb. 16, 2022) (holding that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief
against non-party prison officials) (citing In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litig, 72 F.3d at 842–43). “Since it is
axiomatic that courts may only enjoin parties before the court, unless [a non-party] falls within one of the
narrowly-defined exceptions to this axiom,” a non-party cannot bound by an injunction. E.A. Renfroe & Co.
v. Moran, 338 F. App'x 836, 838 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). “[A]n injunction is binding upon ‘the
parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in
active concert or participation with them.’” Id. at 838 (quoting Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 13-14
(1945)) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (providing that an order granting an
injunction or a restraining order “binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal
service or otherwise: (A) the parties; (B) the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys;
and (C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A)
or (B)”).
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 13 of 14

14
Issuance,” and “Motion to Correct the Record” [Docs. 2, 4, 7, 12, & 16]; and the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s “Emergency” “Petition for Stalking Temporary Protective Order”
[sic], “Emergency Motion to Submit Supplemental Digital Evidence,” and “Motion for an
Emergency Order to Sever Fraudulent Business Account and Grant Injunctive Relief”
[Docs. 5, 6, & 15].
Defendant Sodexo is not required to respond to any recast complaint until the
Court reviews it for compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and orders
Defendant Sodexo to file an answer or other responsive pleading.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of October, 2026.
s/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:26-cv-00300-CAR Document 20 Filed 10/16/26 Page 14 of 14