Carlos Dario Wilson v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08909
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARLOS DARIO WILSON, Case No. 25-cv-08909-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION 10 HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, et al., 11 Docket No. 9 Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff Carlos Dario Wilson, proceeding pro se, has filed suit against Defendants Horizon 15 Actuarial Services, LLC (“Horizon”); Unite Here, Local 2 (“Union”); Mike Casey; and Anand 16 Singh.1 In his complaint, Mr. Wilson alleges that he was formerly an employee of the Union; that 17 the Union contracted with Horizon to provide certain services to Union employees; that Horizon 18 suffered a data breach; and that Mr. Wilson was injured a result.2 According to Mr. Wilson, the 19 data breach “made possible violent stalking[,] cyber stalking, witness intimidation, obstruction, 20 harassment, rape, torture and the human trafficking by third party actors believed to be the agents 21 and associates of former Unite Here[] Local 2 . . . leader, Mike Casey.”3 Compl., ECF Page 3. He 22 1 Mr. Casey, as alleged, is the former president of the Union. Mr. Singh appears to be the current 23 president.

24 2 As alleged by Mr. Wilson, a class action was brought against Horizon because of the data breach. See Sherwood, et al. v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01495-ELR (N.D. Ga.). 25 That lawsuit settled, but Mr. Wilson opted out of the class action settlement.

26 3 Attached as Exhibit C to the complaint is a letter written by Mr. Wilson. In the letter, Mr. Wilson seems to claim that the alleged wrongdoers are, in fact, family members and others 27 associated with them. See Compl., Ex. C (ECF Page 3-4). Mr. Wilson brought a separate lawsuit 1 also indicates that the goal of the “bad actors” was “to steal his identity and defraud [him] and his 2 family of his retirement investment accounts and his family’s estates.” Compl., ECF Page 5; see 3 also Compl., ECF Pages 9-10 (referring to his own financial accounts held with “San Francisco 4 Federal Credit Union, Merrill Lynch, Fidelity Investments, US Bank, Wells Fargo[,] Bank of 5 America, ING, Cash App, PayPal and others” as well as his “grandparent’s and parent’s estates”). 6 Currently pending before the Court is Mr. Wilson’s motion for an emergency injunction 7 and claim to victim’s rights. In the motion, Mr. Wilson asks the Court to prevent further 8 harassment and intimidation, to halt the dissipation of funds belonging to him or family members, 9 to declare that he has certain rights as a victim, and to order the return of his ADA service animals. 10 Having considered the papers filed, the Court hereby DENIES Mr. Wilson’s motion for relief. 11 I. DISCUSSION 12 Mr. Wilson is proceeding pro se. The Court liberally construes his motion as one seeking 13 a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). 14 As an initial matter, the Court denies Mr. Wilson relief because there is no indication that 15 he gave notice of his motion to any Defendant. Nor has Mr. Wilson provided an explanation as to 16 why an ex parte TRO should issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (providing that “[t]he court may 17 issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its 18 attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that 19 immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse 20 party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts 21 made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required”); see also Reno Air Racing 22 Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that “courts have recognized very 23 few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO”). 24 Furthermore, even if there were no procedural impediment to Mr. Wilson’s motion, the 25 Court would still deny Mr. Wilson relief because it is not clear that the Court has subject matter 26 jurisdiction over the case. Mr. Wilson seems to allege in his complaint only state law causes of 27 action. See Compl., ECF Page 4 (incorporating the state law claims pled in Sherwood, the data 1 diversity jurisdiction because complete diversity between the parties is lacking. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 1332(a)(1) (providing that, for diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed 3 $75,000 and the controversy is between “citizens of different States”). Both Mr. Wilson and 4 Horizon appear to be citizens of California. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 5 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“hold[ing] that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state 6 of which its owners/members are citizens”); Compl., ECF Page 3 (alleging that some of the 7 members of Horizon – an LLC – are citizens of California). 8 Finally, even if a federal cause of action were pled in the complaint4 – which would give 9 rise to federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing that “[t]he district courts shall 10 have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 11 United States”) – Mr. Wilson’s contention that Defendants were involved in some kind of 12 conspiracy to intimidate him, engage in human trafficking, or otherwise violate his rights is 13 entirely speculative. He does not offer any evidence, let alone any nonconclusory allegations, to 14 support this assertion. Accordingly, Mr. Wilson has failed to show a likelihood of success on the 15 merits, or even serious questions going to the merits, and a TRO is not proper. See Winter v. 16 NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (noting that, for preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff “must 17 establish that [plaintiff] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [plaintiff] is likely to suffer 18 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in 19 [plaintiff’s] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest”); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 20 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that the Ninth Circuit has adopted a 21 sliding scale approach under which “a preliminary injunction could issue where the likelihood of 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 4 Mr. Wilson makes a passing reference to RICO and the Trafficking Victims Protection 1 success is such that ‘serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships 2 tips sharply in [plaintiff’s] favor”). 3 II. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Wilson’s motion for a TRO is denied. 5 This order disposes of Docket No. 9. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: November 19, 2025 10 11 ______________________________________ P.CASEY PITTS 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27