EXINOR v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRUNSWICK EXINOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:25-cv-02339-TWP-MJD
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION
This matter is before the Court on three Motions for Prohibitory Injunction filed by pro se
Plaintiff Brunswick Exinor ("Exinor), on November 19, 2025.1 (Dkts. 6, 7, 9). Exinor initiated this
action by filing a Complaint alleging unlawful encumbrance, lack of standing to foreclose, unjust
enrichment, securitization disputes and cloud-on-title allegations, against Defendant 	Freedom
Mortgage Corp. ("Freedom Mortgage"). (Dkt. 1). For the reasons explained below, the motions
are denied.
In the first motion, Exinor requests an order restraining Freedom Mortgage from taking
any foreclosure-related action on certain real property while her civil tort claim is ongoing. (Dkt.
6). She states that she "has reason to believe Defendant may initiate or attempt to initiate
foreclosure, collection, or other adverse actions despite lacking standing or documentation." Id. at
3.
In her second and third motions, she states in a conclusory fashion that she has
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the tort claim; she faces
1 Plaintiff is admonished that she should not file multiple duplicative motions, and instead should put all requests in
a single motion.
Case 1:25-cv-02339-TWP-MJD Document 11 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
irreparable harm, including the risk of losing real property, damage to credit, and continued cloud
on title; the balance of equities favors the Plaintiff; Defendant suffers no harm from waiting for
adjudication but Plaintiff suffers severe harm if foreclosure proceeds; and, the injunction serves
the public interest, promoting fairness, transparency, and proper adjudication before foreclosure.
(Dkts. 7, 9).
“A party seeking a preliminary injunction must satisfy all three requirements in the
threshold phase by showing that (1) it will suffer irreparable harm in the period before the
resolution of its claim; (2) traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) there is some
likelihood of success on the merits of the claim.” HH-Indianapolis, LLC v. Consol. City of
Indianapolis and County of Marion, Indiana, 889 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
omitted). If the plaintiff meets these threshold requirements, "the court then must weigh the harm
the denial of the preliminary injunction would cause the plaintiff against the harm to the defendant
if the court were to grant it." Id. "[A] preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching
power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Orr v. Shicker, 953 F.3d
490. 501 (7th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
"A movant's showing of likelihood of success on the merits must be strong." Tully v.
Okeson, 977 F.3d 608, 613 (7th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). A "better than negligible"
likelihood of success is not enough. Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 762−63 (7th
Cir. 2020). "A 'strong' showing ... does not mean proof by a preponderance .... But it normally
includes a demonstration of how the applicant proposes to prove the key elements of its case." Id.
First, Exinor's conclusory statements without any analysis fail to establish any of the three
threshold requirements necessary for preliminary injunctive relief. Exinor has not shown that she
will suffer irreparable harm in the period before the resolution of her claim, as she states that she
Case 1:25-cv-02339-TWP-MJD Document 11 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
"has reason to believe Defendant may initiate or attempt to initiate foreclosure." She has not shown
that irreparable harm is imminent. Nor has she established that any traditional legal remedies are
inadequate. Her motions fail to demonstrate Exinor proposes to prove the key elements of her case.
And because her complaint has not yet been screened, she has not yet established federal
jurisdiction and therefore, a likelihood of success of the merits of her claims cannot be determined.
Further a court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). The docket does not reflect that Freedom Mortgage has been served notice of
this action and the motions for injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Exinor should not seek to renew
her motion for preliminary injunction until the complaint has been screened, and/or the defendant
has been served.
Because Plaintiff Brunswick Exinor has failed to satisfy any of the requirements for
preliminary injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, her Motions
for Prohibitory Injunction, Dkts. [6], [7] and [9] are DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED:
Date: 11/24/2025
DISTRIBUTION:
Brunswick Exinor
P.O. Box 864
Noblesville, IN 46061
Case 1:25-cv-02339-TWP-MJD Document 11 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>