Laury v. LoBue

Opinion

TOM G. LAURY, No. 1:20-cv-01463-DAD-SKO Plaintiff, v. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR VINCENT HOWARD LOBUE, et al., INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants. (Doc. No. 1)

On October 15, 2020, plaintiff Tom G. Laury filed a complaint for injunctive relief against defendants Vincent Howard LoBue and Christine Cecelia LoBue asserting a claim under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”). (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants filed an answer on December 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 8.) It has recently come to the court’s attention that plaintiff’s complaint included what appears to be a request for preliminary injunctive relief. Specifically, defendant alleges that “[a]ssets are being dissipated and hidden [and he] feels [he] need[s] injunction relief to preserve these assets.” (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) The court notes that district courts in the Ninth Circuit have regularly found TROs and injunctive relief warranted in the PACA context, and routinely conclude that the prospect of statutory trust assets being depleted constitutes irreparable injury. See, e.g., Chula Brand CA, Corp. v. Martinez, 17-cv-37-JLS-KSC, 2017 WL 107672, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2017); Newland N. Am. Foods, Inc. v. H.P. Skolnick, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00934- EJD, 2013 WL 792672, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013); Herb Fresh, LLC v. GR Prods., LLC, No. 5:12-cv-03669-EJD, 2012 WL 2906592, at *2—3 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012). In their answer, defendants do not substantively address plaintiff's request. (Doc. No. 8.) Accordingly, the court hereby orders defendants to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief by December 24, 2020. Plaintiff may file a reply, if any, no later than December 31, 2020. IT IS SOORDERED. a “ Li. wh F Dated: _ December 16, 2020 See 1" S98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE