February 3, 2023





DANIEL MORRIS       Plaintiff






COMES NOW, Plaintiff, DANIEL MORRIS, with this Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and hereby Moves pursuant to Utah Code 13-5-14 for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction against Defendant SHELLY RUFF. 


Plaintiff files this Motion on the ground that Defendant solely made a crucial decision to get Covid-19 mRNA shoots for the parties’ children: Jack (15) or Marley (13). Pursuant to Section 17 of the Decree of Divorce, the Defendant was obligated to involve Plaintiff in making the said decision. 


Plaintiff and Defendant were married and had four issues from the marriage, to wit: Jack (15), Marley (13), Ty (11), and Henry (5).

On or about December 11, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant got divorced vide a decree of divorce issued on the self-same date. [Exhibit 1].

Upon divorce, the Plaintiff re-married with Miranda, his current wife with four children: Raeghan (12), Rhonin (10), Tristin (8), and Taylee (6). Together, the couple has a baby boy, now 2 years old, with his wife. 

In the decree of divorce, the Court awarded the parties 50/50 joint legal and physical custody. The Court further ordered that the Parties exchange information using Talking Parents unless otherwise agreed. And that questions/emails should be responded to within 48 hours. Further, the Court held that events and appointments should be placed on the Google calendar. The parties were also ordered to utilize a notebook to exchange information about the children and their welfare.

It was also ordered that the parties should reasonably consult with one another before making any decisions regarding any major issues affecting the children. Further, it was ordered that each party should make reasonable efforts to notify one another of the children’s respective medical and dental appointments; parent teacher conferences; school events and performances; parent volunteer opportunities; church events and other activities related therewith; unless the information is available online. And that if there is a medical emergency the parent shall notify the other parent telephonically within one hour. If the other parent does not answer, a message shall be left. The Court specifically stated in that regard that: “all major decisions concerning our child, including their health, education, and general welfare, daycare, education, and medical and dental treatment will be discussed.”

Pertaining the sharing of information, it was ordered that the parties use their best efforts to communicate and share information with each other on a frequent basis regarding their children’s development, school work, medical and dental treatment, and any other information appropriate to share with the other parent.

Unfortunately, Defendant has committed acts and/or omissions, which violated the directives in the Court Order. Notably, Defendant breached Section 17 of the Decree on Decision Making. Plaintiff honored his obligation by duly informing Defendant of the baptism of Ty. However, Defendant has not been involving Plaintiff in her decision making. For example, she got covid-19 mRNA shots for the Parties’ oldest two (Jack and Marley), without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. 


Rule 65A(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the standards for a preliminary injunction under Utah law:

  1. The applicant will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction issues;
  2. The threatened injury to the applicant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the party enjoined;
  3. The injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest; and
  4. There is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim, or the case presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation.

See Utah R. Civ. P. 65A(e); see also Hunsaker v. Kersh, 991 P.2d 67, 69 (Utah 1999); Water & Energy Sys. Tech. Inc. v. Keil, 974 P.2d 821, 822 (Utah 1999).


  1. The Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the Court doesn’t give the injunction

Irreparable harm is “that which cannot be adequately compensated in damages or for which damages cannot be compensable in money”—in other words, harm from which the injured party cannot be made whole by monetary compensation. See Hunsaker v. Kersh, 1999 UT 106, ¶ 9, 991 P.2d 67 (emphasis omitted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, an injunction may be appropriate to prevent harms that “occasion damages that are estimated only by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

A lot of concerns have been raised over Covid-19 mRNA shoots. Notably, a complaint was filed against the FDA at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee challenging the FDA’s authorization of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, which vaccine poses health hazards. [EXHIBIT 2- Complaint- US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee]. It is worth noting that COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA (Comirnaty) is on clinical trial stage. Studies on the said vaccine are expected to be concluded on or about May, 2023. 

Plaintiff further avers that the said vaccination violated the Nuremberg Code, which necessitates the need for consent before such medical procedures are taken. Accordingly, Defendant erroneously presented the children for the said vaccination before obtaining Plaintiff’s consent. Not only did such failure violate the Nuremberg Code, it was also a violation of Section 17 of the Decree of Divorce. Plaintiff therefore observes that this Court should Order the Defendant produce the vaccination records of the children. 

It is worth noting that the children may suffer irreparable harm in the event the Defendant is not precluded from carrying out further activities absent Plaintiff’s express consent. 

  1. The threatened harm on Plaintiff outweighs any harm that Defendant may be occasioned following the issuance of an injunction

An injunction may be appropriate to prevent harms that “occasion damages that are estimated only by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard. Hunsaker v. Kersh, 1999 UT 106, ¶ 9, 991 P.2d 67

Plaintiff contends that the Defendant does not stand to suffer any harm consequential to the injunction. Instead, the parties’ children stand to suffer serious health concerns in the event they are subjected to a vaccine that is still on clinical trial. And in the event his Court holds that Defendant would suffer in any manner, the harm done on Plaintiff outweighs the alleged harm on Defendant. Notably, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress and harm. 

  1. The injunction would not be adverse to public interest

“A matter falls within the public interest `when the case presents an issue that affects the public interest, is likely to recur, and because of the brief time that any one litigant is affected, is capable of evading review.”‘ See McBride v. Utah State Bar, 2010 UT 60, ¶ 13, 242 P.3d 769. Matters of public interest raises issues that are so unique and of such great importance that they ought to be decided in furtherance of the public interest. National Parks Conservation Ass’n. v. Board of State Lands, 869 P.2d 909, 913 (Utah 1993).

Plaintiff submits that an injunction in the circumstances would violate public interest. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to protect the health of his children from the danger and risk of using a vaccine that is still on clinical trial.

  1. Plaintiff’s case raises serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation.

“A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 690 (2008) (quotation simplified).

Plaintiff submits that his case raises genuine matters of concern, which have a high likelihood for success on their merits. Notably, Defendant violated Utah Code 76-9-201, by engaging in electronic communication harassment. Defendant published defamatory content on her Facebook platform. She published the defamatory content after Plaintiff raised genuine concerns that Defendant spent more time with the parties’ oldest and youngest children. Plaintiff avers that Defendant made the said communication with intent to annoy, alarm, intimidate, offend, abuse, threaten, harass, or frighten Plaintiff. Further, Defendant published the information on her Facebook account to insult, taunt, or challenge the Plaintiff in a bid to provoke a violent or disorderly response.

Defendant was required to obtain Plaintiff’s consent before embarking on the vaccination of the children. A breach of the said obligation(s) raises a serious issue on the merits thereof. 


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Daniel Morris respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor, entering a preliminary injunction ordering that:

  1. Enjoins Defendant from making any further health decision(s)pertaining the health and vaccination of the children; and 
  2. Enjoining Defendant to produce any and all Covid-19 vaccination reports of the vaccinated children. 



Dated this _____ day of ______, 2021


Respectfully submitted:



Dated: __________



I, [ENTER NAME], certified on this ______day of ________ 2021, I deposited a true copy of the above to the Defendant by placing the documents with prepaid postage in the United States mailbox address.


At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.