Frost v. Meta Platforms Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TIFFANY FROST, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-607-G
)
META PLATFORMS, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Tiffany Frost, appearing pro se, initiated this action on June 5, 2025. Now
before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 4), filed
June 11, 2025, and Revised Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 5), filed
June 17, 2025.
I. Standards of Review
As explained by the Tenth Circuit,
Ordinarily, a movant seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the
movant if the injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant
outweighs the injury to the party opposing the preliminary injunction; and
(4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Because a
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the movant’s right to
relief must be clear and unequivocal.
Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir.
2001) (citation omitted). These four requirements apply equally to a request for a
temporary restraining order (or “TRO”). See Wiechmann v. Ritter, 44 F. App’x 346, 347
(10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Terry, No. CIV-19-250-SLP, 2019 WL 7753271, at *1
(W.D. Okla. Mar. 26, 2019).
Case 5:25-cv-00607-G Document 7 Filed 06/20/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Plaintiff’s request for a TRO is also governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Rule 65(b)(1) prescribes that the Court may enter a temporary restraining
order without notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if (1) “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 (2) “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the
reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A), (B).
II. Discussion
In this diversity action, Plaintiff alleges that her company engaged Defendant Meta
Platforms, Inc. for advertising services but then discovered on May 12, 2025, that the
purchased “retargeting ad campaign” had been “misfir[ed],” thereby “defeating its
purpose.” Am. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff additionally alleges that she complained to
Defendant, but Defendant ignored Plaintiff and “failed to provide meaningful support.” Id.
at 2-3. Instead, Defendant “imposed unjustified account restrictions” and caused Plaintiff
to receive daily harassing telephone calls, including calls from “No Caller ID, toll-free, and
geo-spoofed numbers.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s conduct has “negatively
impacted” her “finals, graduation, and bar exam preparation,” “leading to academic and
professional setbacks.” Id. (alleging that Defendant’s actions “le[d] to Plaintiff formally
emailing the Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners on June 10, 2025, documenting the federal
case number” and “that a creditor account will be reporting a 30-day delinquency with
other accounts to follow”); see also id. Ex. 6 (Doc. No. 3-6) (email from Plaintiff).
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to provide funds in the amount of
Case 5:25-cv-00607-G Document 7 Filed 06/20/25 Page 2 of 5

3
$25,000 to $30,000 to Plaintiff “to mitigate irreparable harm” being caused by Defendant’s
conduct and to “re-establish” Plaintiff’s “access to transportation and digital tools.” Pl.’s
Mot. at 2; Pl.’s Decl., Pl.’s Revised Mot. Ex. 2 (Doc. No. 5-2) at 1. Plaintiff also asks that
the Court issue emergency injunctive relief to stop the harassing telephone calls made by
Defendant “and its associates.” Am. Compl. at 2; see Pl.’s Mot. at 2.
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 65’s procedural
requirements for issuance of a TRO. Plaintiff’s Motions do not “certif[y] in writing” any
efforts to made to give notice to Defendant, instead asserting only that Plaintiff will be
irreparably harmed if relief is not granted before Defendant can be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(1)(B); see Pl.’s Mot. at 2; Pl.’s Revised Mot. at 5.
Nor do Plaintiff’s Motions demonstrate an entitlement to extraordinary relief.
Plaintiff’s request that Defendant pay her “emergency financial relief,” even if it was
accompanied by support for the amount ($25,000 to $30,000) sought, is not the type of
“equitable relief” that is available through the remedy of a TRO. Heideman v. S. Salt Lake
City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1189 (10th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(d)(1)(C) (prescribing that every injunction and TRO must describe “the act or acts
restrained or required”); Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 255 (1993) (“Money
damages are . . . the classic form of legal relief.”). Relatedly, it is “well settled that simple
economic loss usually does not, in and of itself, constitute irreparable harm.” Heideman,
348 F.3d at 1189.
Plaintiff’s request that the Court prohibit harassing calls to her telephone is the type
of equitable relief that may be accomplished through a TRO—to the extent such calls are
Case 5:25-cv-00607-G Document 7 Filed 06/20/25 Page 3 of 5

4
improper and being made by Defendant or persons and entities over which Defendant
exercises control. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s sworn allegations, declarations, and exhibits do
not show specific facts from which the Court may conclude that the calls she is receiving
will cause her irreparable injury. Plaintiff’s facts do not provide a basis for the Court to
determine how many (if any) of the multiple calls to Plaintiff’s telephone from unidentified
numbers or blocked numbers were caused or initiated by Defendant. See Pl.’s Mot. at 2;
Pl.’s Revised Mot. Ex. 4 (Doc. No. 5-4) at 2; Pl.’s Am. Compl. at 2 (alleging that the calls
“consistently failed to include voicemails”); id. Ex. 7 (Doc. No. 3-7) (showing numerous
“unknown” calls and calls from various banks). Plaintiff’s facts do not provide a basis for
the Court to determine how many (if any) of the calls to Plaintiff’s telephone are
harassment as opposed to legitimate and reasonable communications (e.g., calls within
business hours regarding actual debt and credit issues of Plaintiff). As a result, the Court
cannot reasonably infer—as Plaintiff suggests—that the harassing telephone calls to
Plaintiff from Defendant (or persons and entities over which Defendant exercises control)
are enough to cause Plaintiff such distress as would hinder Plaintiff’s efforts to become
licensed as an attorney or otherwise cause Plaintiff irreparable harm.1 This is particularly
so where Plaintiff’s facts do not establish that ordinary and reasonable efforts to avoid such
calls and any resulting distress—e.g., turning off or silencing the telephone while studying,
blocking calls from certain numbers, and reporting improper or illegal efforts to collect a
1 Plaintiff’s allegation that she has notified the bar examiners of this lawsuit does not,
standing alone, provide a reasonable basis for the Court to conclude that the calls are
causing Plaintiff “reputational and professional harm,” Pl.’s Mot. at 1.
Case 5:25-cv-00607-G Document 7 Filed 06/20/25 Page 4 of 5

5
debt—would not be sufficient to diminish the distressing calls and avoid any irreparable
harm.
For all these reasons, Plaintiff fails to show “irreparable injury” absent issuance of
a TRO or a “clear and unequivocal” right to the requested extraordinary relief. Dominion
Video Satellite, 356 F.3d at 1261 (internal quotation marks omitted).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 4) and Revised
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 5) therefore are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of June, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00607-G Document 7 Filed 06/20/25 Page 5 of 5