Coleman v. Telles

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JESSICA COLEMAN, et al., Case No.: 2:24-cv-00930-APG-MDC

4 Plaintiffs Order Denying Motion to Stay Distribution of Settlement Funds 5 v. [ECF No. 84] 6 ROBERT TELLES, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 Defendant/counterclaimant Robert Telles moves for an injunction precluding counsel for 9 plaintiffs Jessica Coleman, Aleisha Goodwin, and Rita Reid from disbursing settlement funds 10 these plaintiffs receive from settling with defendant Clark County until Telles’ counterclaims 11 against these plaintiffs are resolved. Telles argues the funds should be kept in an interest-bearing 12 “blocked account” so the plaintiffs cannot “spend away the funds” and prevent Telles from 13 recovering from them. ECF No. 84 at 11. 14 Coleman, Goodwin, and Reid respond that although Clark County made offers of 15 judgment to all four original plaintiffs, only plaintiff Noraine Pagdanganan accepted. They 16 argue that because Coleman, Goodwin, and Reid did not accept the settlement offer, there is 17 nothing to distribute, and thus nothing to restrain. Clark County notes that Telles apparently 18 does not seek an injunction against it, but it opposes Telles’s motion, arguing that Telles has not 19 shown a likelihood of irreparable harm. In reply, Telles argues that even if Coleman, Goodwin, 20 and Reid rejected Clark County’s offer of judgment, an injunction is nevertheless “proper to 21 ensure that if and when Plaintiffs do accept a settlement offer, they cannot spend away the 22 proceeds before satisfying a judgment in Telles’s favor.” ECF No. 89 at 2. 23 ] To qualify for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of 2|| success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def: Council, Inc., 41555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, under the sliding scale approach, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) serious questions on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public 7}\interest. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). 8 I deny Telles’s motion because he has not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm. 9} Coleman, Goodwin, and Reid did not accept Clark County’s offer of judgment, so there are no 10] settlement funds they can expend before Telles’s counterclaims against them can be resolved. 11|| See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that “a 12]| plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief”). Likewise, Telles’s speculation that maybe they will accept a settlement offer 14|| in the future does not support an injunction at this time. See id. (“Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.”); Cir. for 16|| Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that a plaintiff “must 17|| establish that irreparable harm is /ike/y, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction”). 19 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant/counterclaimant Robert Telles’s motion to stay 20] distribution of settlement funds (ECF No. 84) is DENIED. 21 DATED this 27th day of June, 2025. . ANDREWP.GORDON. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE