Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians et al v. Crosby et al

Filing 102

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/14/15 DENYING 72 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI
INDIANS; and PASKENTA
ENTERPRISES CORPORATION,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

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.

26

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction “imposing an

27

immediate freeze on the assets of Defendants John Crosby, Ines

28

Crosby, Leslie Lohse, and Larry Lohse,” with an exception for
1

1

“reasonable

2

$10,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Pls.’ Mem. P&A ISO Mot.

3

Prelim. Inj. (“Mot.”) 1:4-5; 33:10-12, ECF No. 72-10.)

living

expenses[]

and

a

collective

allowance

of

4

To justify an injunction, a plaintiff “must establish

5

that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible.” Alliance for

6

the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.

7

2011).

8

irreparable harm . . . . Therefore, a party seeking an asset

9

freeze has the additional burden of showing ‘a likelihood of

10

dissipation of the claimed assets, or other inability to recover

11

monetary damages, if relief is not granted.’” Fid. Nat’l Title

12

Ins. Co. v. Castle, No. C-11-00896-SI, 2011 WL 5882878, at *5-6

13

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (internal citation omitted). “Courts

14

have construed this standard narrowly, only exercising their ...

15

authority . . . where there is considerable evidence of likely

16

dissipation.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baglioni, No. CV-11-06704-DDP-

17

VBKX, 2011 WL 5402487, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011).

“Typically,

18

Plaintiffs

monetary

argue

harm

alone

Defendants’

does

not

“consistent

constitute

pattern

of

19

theft, fraudulent behavior, and attempts to evade liability,”

20

demonstrate “there is a substantial likelihood that [they] will

21

dissipate Tribal assets to frustrate any potential judgment” in

22

the absence of an injunction. (Mot. 6:22-7:1; 6:18-20.)

23

Defendants respond Plaintiffs’ evidence is insufficient

24

to justify the extraordinary remedy they seek since “Plaintiffs

25

lump

26

Defendants should be enjoined. Plaintiffs, however, are seeking

27

injunctions against each individual and are therefore required to

28

show that each individual is likely to dissipate assets or put

all

Defendants

together

.

2

.

.

and

broadly

assert

all

1

them beyond the reach of the Court.”1 (Defs.’ Opp’n Mot. Prelim.

2

Inj., 8:21-25, ECF No. 87.)

3
4

Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence justifying
the injunctive relief they seek.

5

Therefore, Plaintiffs preliminary injunction motion is

6

DENIED.

7

Dated:

August 14, 2015

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

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.

3