Isozaki v. Resolute Capital Partners LTD

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 8, 2021
• Docket: 4:21-cv-00091
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DONALD ISOZAKI, Case No. 21-cv-091-YGR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 9

ORDER AND GRANTING REQUEST TO 10 R etE aS lO ., LUTE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD. LLC, S PH RO ELR IT ME IN N AT RIM Y E I NO JN U NM CO TIT OIO N N FOR

11 Defendants. Dkt. No. 6 12

13 Plaintiff Donald Isozaki has filed an ex parte motion (Dkt. No. 6) for temporary restraining 14 order and request for an order to show cause and set a hearing on a preliminary injunction to 15 restrain defendants Resolute Capital Partners LTD., LLC, Resolute Capital Managers, LLC, 16 Legacy Energy, LLC, PetroRock Mineral Holdings, LLC, HomeBound Resources, LLC, 17 HomeBound, Inc., Home Bound Financial Group, LP, Mercury Operating, LLC, Stefan Toth, Ted 18 Etheredge, Pablo Cortez, and Thomas Powell (collectively, the “RCP Parties”) from transferring, 19 removing, or disposing of $600,000 from their accounts in any other manner other than to transfer 20 Isozaki’s retirement savings back into Isozaki’s possession and control. 21 Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED on the grounds that 22 he has not established irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies, nor has he submitted 23 evidence establishing service of notice of the ex parte application. Typically, injunctive relief is 24 unavailable to compel payment of money past due under a contract or specific performance of a 25 past due monetary obligation. Great-W. Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 210 26 (2002); Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th 27 Cir. 1980) (threat of lost revenues insufficient for injunctive relief since economic harm is not 1 generally considered irreparable); cf. hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985, 993 (9th Cir. 2 || 2019) (threat of business “extinction,” beyond monetary damages, established irreparable harm 3 where plaintiff would have “no viable way to remain in business other than using [defendant’s] 4 public profile data for its [business services]’”). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate why the claims here 5 would be an exception to that limitation on the equitable remedy he seeks, nor why such relief 6 || should be granted on an ex parte basis under the circumstances. 7 Further, the representation in the notice of motion that papers had been served and sent to 8 defendants via email lacks evidentiary support or certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 9 However, based upon the evidence submitted, plaintiff’s Request for Order to Show Cause 10 || re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction is construed as a request to hear his motion for preliminary 11 injunction on shortened time and on that basis is GRANTED. 12 Plaintiff shall file and serve any additional briefing or evidence in support of his motion for 13 preliminary injunction no later than January 11, 2021, along with proof of service of the 14 summons and complaint in this matter and this Order. Opposition shall be filed by January 18, 3 15 || 2021. Reply shall be filed by January 20, 2021. The hearing on the preliminary injunction shall 16 be held on January 26, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. via the Court’s Zoom videoconference platform.

2 17 This terminates Docket No. 6. 5 18 IT Is SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: January 8, 2021 20 | 7 YVONNE eS Roca 2] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28