Taylor et al v. Hooven et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Brendon Taylor, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Jesse Lee Anthony Hooven, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:24-cv-204
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Denying Motion for TRO and
Preliminary Injunction
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Holly Hooven’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion for TRO”) pursuant to Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 109.) Holly Hooven asks this Court to issue a TRO and
injunctive relief staying the enforcement of an October 29, 2025 decision issued by Judge Betsy
Sundermann in the domestic relations lawsuit between Plaintiff Holly Hooven and Defendant
Jesse Hooven, Hooven v. Hooven, No. DR1801899 POST (Hamilton Cnty, Ohio C.P.). (Doc.
108 at PageID 964–988.) For the following reasons, the Court will DENY the Motion for TRO
without further briefing.
I.
In the October 29, 2025 decision, Judge Sundermann terminated a shared custody
agreement between the Hoovens, designated Jesse Hooven as the residential parent and
custodian of the Hooven children, and found Holly Hooven to be in contempt of court on several
matters. (Doc. 108 at 980–984.) Holly Hooven moves the Court to issue a TRO and injunctive
relief enjoining the decision to the extent that Judge Sundermann found her to be in contempt for
violating an order to not disclose Jesse Hooven’s residential address. (Doc. 109 at PageID 989,
1009; Doc. 108 at PageID 971–972, 979.) Judge Sundermann found that Holly Hooven violated
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-SJD Doc #: 110 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
that order when her legal counsel, Justin Whittaker, disclosed Jesse Hooven’s residential address
in this federal lawsuit on July 15, 2024. (Doc. 108 at PageID 971–972, 979.) Attorney
Whittaker disclosed the address in a filing asking the Clerk of Court to issue a service of
summons to Jesse Hooven at his new residence. (Doc. 29.)
Holly Hooven filed a notice of appeal in state court challenging Judge Sundermann’s
decision on November 26, 2025. (Doc. 109 at PageID 995.) She then filed the pending Motion
for TRO in this federal suit on December 1, 2025.
II.
Holly Hooven argues in the pending Motion for TRO that the Court should enjoin Judge
Sundermann’s decision because finding her in contempt for attempting to serve a civil summons
upon Jesse Hooven at his residential address violated her First Amendment rights. The Court
need not address the substantive merits of that argument because the Court will abstain from
interfering in the on-going domestic relations litigation in state court for prudential reasons.
Holly Hooven argues that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, does not preclude
the Court from enjoining Judge Sundermann’s decision. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that
“[a] court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court
except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction,
or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. “[T]he Anti-Injunction Act creates
an absolute prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls
within one of three specifically defined exceptions.” Martingale LLC v. City of Louisville, 361
F.3d 297, 302 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by
which Holly Hooven seeks to enforce her First Amendment rights, is “an Act of Congress that
falls within the ‘expressly authorized’ exception” of the Anti-Injunction Act. Mitchum v. Foster,
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-SJD Doc #: 110 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
407 U.S. 225, 242 (1972). So Holly Hooven is correct that the Anti-Injunction Act does not
prohibit the Court from deciding the Motion for TRO on the merits.
However, the Supreme Court instructed in Mitchum that even if the Anti-Injunction Act
does not apply, a district court must consider “the principles of equity, comity, and federalism”
when deciding whether to enjoin a state court proceeding. Id. at 243. “There is a general
presumption that state courts are competent to protect federal rights.” Fazel v. Morgantown
Bank & Tr. Co., No. CIV.A. 1:98-CV-142-R, 1998 WL 34077295, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 14,
1998) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431
(1982)). The abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is relevant here. The
Sixth Circuit has explained Younger abstention as follows:
Younger abstention requires a federal court to abstain from granting injunctive or
declaratory relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings.
We look to three factors to determine whether a court should abstain from hearing
a case under the Younger doctrine: “(1) there must be on-going state judicial
proceedings; (2) those proceedings must implicate important state interests; and
(3) there must be an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise
constitutional challenges.”
O’Neill v. Coughlan, 511 F.3d 638, 643 (6th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). “If these conditions
are satisfied, the court should abstain unless there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or
another extraordinary circumstance that makes abstention inappropriate.” Graves v. Mahoning
Cnty., 534 F. App’x 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2013).
Holly Hooven did not address Younger abstention in her Motion for TRO. The Court
readily concludes that Younger abstention applies here. All three criteria for Younger abstention
are satisfied. First, there is a pending state court domestic relations case. Holly Hooven has filed
a notice of appeal of Judge Sundermann’s decision. (Doc. 109 at 995.) Second, “a domestic
relations question involves an important state interest under . . . Younger.” Mackenzie v. Green,
No. 99-5955, 2000 WL 922110, at *2 (6th Cir. June 27, 2000) (citing Kelm v. Hyatt, 444 F.3d
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-SJD Doc #: 110 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
415, 420 (6th Cir. 1995)). Third, Holly Hooven has not rebutted the presumption that she can
challenge the merits and constitutionality of the contempt finding in the pending state court
appeal. Accordingly, the Court will abstain under Younger from issuing a TRO or injunctive
order that would interfere with the pending domestic relations lawsuit between the Hoovens.
III.
For the reasons above, Plaintiff Holly Hooven’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 109) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-SJD Doc #: 110 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>