Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK
08-14-2015
PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI INDIANS; and PASKENTA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. INES CROSBY; JOHN CROSBY; LESLIE LOHSE; LARRY LOHSE; TED PATA; JUAN PATA; CHRIS PATA; SHERRY MYERS; FRANK JAMES; UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA HOLDINGS CORPORATION; CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANK; CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANCORP; JEFFERY FINCK; GARTH MOORE; GARTH MOORE INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; ASSOCIATED PENSION CONSULTANTS, INC.; HANESS & ASSOCIATES, LLC; ROBERT M. HANESS; THE PATRIOT GOLD & SILVER EXCHANGE, INC. and NORMAN R. RYAN, Defendants, CRP 111 WEST 141ST LLC; CASTELLAN MANAGING MEMBER LLC; CRP WEST 168TH STREET LLC; and CRP SHERMAN AVENUE LLC, Nominal Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction "imposing an immediate freeze on the assets of Defendants John Crosby, Ines Crosby, Leslie Lohse, and Larry Lohse," with an exception for "reasonable living expenses[] and a collective allowance of $10,000 in attorneys' fees and costs." (Pls.' Mem. P&A ISO Mot. Prelim. Inj. ("Mot.") 1:4-5; 33:10-12, ECF No. 72-10.)
To justify an injunction, a plaintiff "must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible." Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). "Typically, monetary harm alone does not constitute irreparable harm . . . . Therefore, a party seeking an asset freeze has the additional burden of showing 'a likelihood of dissipation of the claimed assets, or other inability to recover monetary damages, if relief is not granted.'" Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Castle, No. C-11-00896-SI, 2011 WL 5882878, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (internal citation omitted). "Courts have construed this standard narrowly, only exercising their ... authority . . . where there is considerable evidence of likely dissipation." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baglioni, No. CV-11-06704-DDP-VBKX, 2011 WL 5402487, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011).
Plaintiffs argue Defendants' "consistent pattern of theft, fraudulent behavior, and attempts to evade liability," demonstrate "there is a substantial likelihood that [they] will dissipate Tribal assets to frustrate any potential judgment" in the absence of an injunction. (Mot. 6:22-7:1; 6:18-20.)
Defendants respond Plaintiffs' evidence is insufficient to justify the extraordinary remedy they seek since "Plaintiffs lump all Defendants together . . . and broadly assert all Defendants should be enjoined. Plaintiffs, however, are seeking injunctions against each individual and are therefore required to show that each individual is likely to dissipate assets or put them beyond the reach of the Court." (Defs.' Opp'n Mot. Prelim. Inj., 8:21-25, ECF No. 87.)
Defendants also raise a facial attack on the district court's subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims by incorporating the arguments presented in an earlier decided dismissal motion. (ECF No. 52.) However, Defendants' earlier conclusory arguments failed to show that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence justifying the injunctive relief they seek.
Therefore, Plaintiffs preliminary injunction motion is DENIED. Dated: August 14, 2015
/s/_________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge