Fraga v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-CV-23474-BECERRA-TORRES
AIDA E. FRAGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This cause 	comes before the Court on 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for Temporary
Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Relief. [D.E. 11]. Defendants have filed a response
[D.E. 22], and the time for Plaintiff to file a reply has passed. The Motion, therefore,
is ripe for disposition.1 After careful review of the briefing and relevant authorities,
and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
I. 	ANALYSIS
This case centers on allegations that Defendants have improperly withheld
Plaintiff’s disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have
improperly diverted to a third party and/or declined to pay her monthly benefit
1 On August 13, 2025, the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra referred all pretrial matters
to the Undersigned Magistrate Judge for disposition. [D.E. 6].
Case 1:25-cv-23474-JB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
payments. In the pending Motion, Plaintiff argues that, immediately, the Court
should require payment of her benefits.
Defendants, meanwhile, argue that Plaintiff’s Motion is wholly deficient in
that it offers no authority or argument as to why preliminary relief is required, and
that Defendants are only withholding the payments because a state court judge in
New York has ordered them to do so.
To 	obtain 	a 	preliminary 	injunction, 	“the 	movant 	must 	establish: 	(1) 	a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying case, (2) the movant
will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, (3) the harm suffered by
the movant in the absence of an injunction would exceed the harm suffered by the
opposing party if the injunction issued, and (4) an injunction would not disserve the
public interest.” Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 299
F.3d 1242, 1246–47 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Carillon Imp., Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Int'l
Group Ltd., 112 F.3d 1125, 1126 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)).
Moreover, “[i]n this Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and
drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the “burden
of persuasion”’ as to the four requisites.” McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d
1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda
Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)). “Failure to show any
of the four factors is fatal, and the most common failure is not showing a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits.” ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Miami–Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
557 F.3d 1177, 1198 (11th Cir. 2009).
Case 1:25-cv-23474-JB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
Here, we need not move past the likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff’s
Motion presents three paragraphs that declare immediate intervention is required.
But absent from Plaintiff’s Motion are any facts or authority to persuade the Court
that a preliminary injunction is appropriate.
Meanwhile, Defendants present a compelling reason as to why Plaintiff has
not established likelihood of success on the merits: Defendants’ non-payment of
Plaintiff’s benefits is the product of a valid restraining order entered by a New York
state court, due to a third-party who holds a judgment against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has made no effort to explain why or how this restraining order is
ineffective or should not be enforced, nor has Plaintiff filed a reply. In light of this,
the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has carried her hefty burden of demonstrating
her likelihood of success on the merits. See Trimble v. United States Soc. Sec. Admin.,
No. 207CV00508FTM34DNF, 2008 WL 11409127, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2008)
(“Upon review of the First and Second Motions for Preliminary Injunction, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden of persuasion as to all four
prerequisites to the entry of preliminary injunctive relief. With regard to whether
Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success, instead of citing any authority in
support of his position, Plaintiff merely concludes that success is substantially likely
because 	‘there 	exist 	[sic] 	no 	legal 	excuse 	or 	justification 	for 	any 	agency
notwithstanding even the federal government to behave in such a manner.’ This
conclusory allegation falls far short of carrying Plaintiff's burden.”).
Case 1:25-cv-23474-JB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
The 	Court 	need 	not 	reach 	Defendants’ 	remaining 	arguments. 	See
GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 788 F.3d 1318, 1329 (11th Cir.
2015) (“Because the plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits, we need not consider the remaining factors in the preliminary injunction
test.”).
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion [D.E. 11] is DENIED, but
without prejudice to later proceedings on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 9th day of
January, 2026.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-23474-JB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 4 of 4