NextGear Capital, Inc. v. Tristate Auto Service Center, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 11, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-09458
StatusUnknown

This text of NextGear Capital, Inc. v. Tristate Auto Service Center, Inc. (NextGear Capital, Inc. v. Tristate Auto Service Center, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
NextGear Capital, Inc. v. Tristate Auto Service Center, Inc., (E.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC.; MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER d/b/a MANHEIM PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 23-CV-9458 (FB) Plaintiffs,

-against-

TRISTATE AUTO SERVICE CETNER, INC.; and ZU JI GAO

Defendants.

Appearances: For the Plaintiff: NICHOLAS GAUNCE Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC 2000 Lenox Drive Suite 203 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction has been granted. Based on the documents that the Plaintiffs have submitted, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing of a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction. See Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v.

1 Nawab, 335 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2003) (stating preliminary injunction elements). Specifically, Plaintiffs have produced documents establishing that the subject

vehicles are at risk of dispersal and Defendants’ bank records. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing of irreparable harm by establishing that it is a secured creditor and that its collateral is at risk of further dissipation and may

not otherwise be collectable. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 65(a). It is ordered that: - Plaintiffs are authorized to take possession of the 24 subject automobiles

identified in the attached Exhibits A and B; - Defendant Tristate is restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from interfering with Plaintiffs’ seizure of the 24 subject vehicles; and

- Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Tristate’ respective employees, servants, agents, representatives, attorneys, affiliates, subsidiaries and all other persons acting on behalf of or in concert with defendants, either individually or jointly, shall be and hereby are restrained, enjoined and prohibited from

directly or indirectly removing, transferring dismantling, damaging, selling, renting, pledging, assigning, encumbering, secreting, concealing, transporting or otherwise disposing of the vehicles identified in Exhibits

2 “A” and “B” attached hereto until further Court order. SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block___________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York January 11, 2023

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab
335 F.3d 141 (Second Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
NextGear Capital, Inc. v. Tristate Auto Service Center, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nextgear-capital-inc-v-tristate-auto-service-center-inc-nyed-2024.