Richard Pallack v. Life is Amazing, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 16, 2021
• Docket: 8:21-cv-00139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 RICHARD PALLACK, Case No.: 8:21-cv-00139-JLS-KESx

12 Plaintiff, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO DEFENDANT LIFE IS 13 vs. AMAZING, LLC 14 LIFE IS AMAZING, LLC, a 15 California Limited Liability Company; DORAN ANDRY, an individual; 16 GEORG BRUNO EHLERT, an individual; ALDAN MIKE SOON, an 17 individual, and ASHWOOD TD 18 SERVICES LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, 19 Defendants. 20

22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On February 12, 2021, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order and 2 Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue. (TRO 3 Decision, Doc. 20.) 4 On March 9, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the Order to Show Cause 5 (“OSC”). Defendants Life is Amazing, LLC (“Life is Amazing”), Doran Andry, 6 and Ashwood TD Services LLC (“Ashwood”) timely filed written responses and 7 appeared at oral argument. (See Ashwood Response, Doc. 23; Life is Amazing 8 Response, Doc. 21.) In their papers and at oral argument, Defendants Life is 9 Amazing and Doran Andry primarily reasserted the arguments they had previously 10 advanced in opposition to the TRO and adduced no new evidence to refute 11 Pallack’s showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits. (Compare Life is 12 Amazing Response with Opp. to TRO, Doc. 18.) 13 Ashwood, which had not filed a response at the TRO stage, asserted that, as 14 a trustee, its duties are limited to undertaking the steps necessary to foreclose the 15 deed of trust, or to reconvey the deed of trust upon satisfaction of the debt. 16 (Ashwood Response at 3 (citing Flores v. EMC Mortg. Co., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 17 1127 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).) 18 However, in its papers, and again at the hearing, Ashwood confirmed that, as an 19 agent of Life is Amazing, it is appropriately bound by this Court’s orders. 20 (Ashwood Opp. at 4.) Pallack’s counsel, in turn, conceded that Pallack has not, at 21 least this stage, shown a likelihood of success on the merits as to the claims 22 against Ashwood. Similarly, Pallack does not make a sufficient showing on the 23 merits as to Andry. Accordingly, the discussion below pertains only to Defendant 24 Life is Amazing. Nonetheless, as agents, both Ashwood and Andry will be bound 25 by this Court’s preliminary injunction. 26 “The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the 27 standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. 1 || TRO, the Court found that Pallack made a sufficient showing under each of the 2 || Winter factors. (See generally TRO Decision; see also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 3 || Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).) The Court concluded that Pallack made a 4 ||strong showing that Life is Amazing violated the Homeownership and Equity 5 || Protection Act (SHOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1639, et seq.; that Pallack has, at 6 ||minimum, raised serious questions about whether Life is Amazing induced him to 7 on the loan through misrepresentations; and that the other Winter factors also 8 in Pallack’s favor. (TRO Decision at 3-9.) The Court sees no reason to depart 9 || from its previous analysis, and incorporates that analysis herein. 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Pallack’s request for a preliminary 11 |/injunction. Pending any further order of this Court, Life is Amazing, its officers, 12 agents, assigns, employees, attorneys, and all those in active concert with it, are 13 ||hereby RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from instituting, prosecuting, or 14 || maintaining foreclosure or sale proceedings on the real property located at 4136 15 ||Davana Road, Los Angeles, California (the “Property”). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: March 16, 2021 oy ae

20 HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28