Rainbow Business Solutions et al v. Merchant Services, Inc et al

Filing 237

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING #231 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order; GRANTING in part #227 Defendant SKS Associates's Motion to Adjourn Return Date and Enlarge Time; and concerning Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/8/2011. (cwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2011) Modified on 4/9/2011 (cwlc2, COURT STAFF).

Just Film, Inc. et al v. Merchant Services, Inc et al

Doc. 237

1 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 4 JUST FILM, INC., et al., 5 Plaintiffs, 6 v. 7 MERCHANT SERVICES, INC., et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 22, 2011, Plaintiffs Just Film, Inc., et al., filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendant SKS Associates. Because Plaintiffs set the motion for hearing on May On April 4, 2011, AND ALL RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS / / ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SKS ASSOCIATES'S MOTION TO ADJOURN RETURN DATE AND ENLARGE TIME, AND CONCERNING BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Docket Nos. 227 and 231) No. C 10-1993 CW

5, 2011, SKS's response is due April 14, 2011.

SKS moved to "adjourn the return date" for Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and to extend its deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion to May 5, 2011. On April 6, 2011, Plaintiffs

filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against SKS, seeking the same injunctive relief they request in their motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 7, 2011,

SKS responded to Plaintiffs' application for a TRO. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin SKS from withdrawing funds from Plaintiff Erin Campbell's and putative class members' bank accounts for fees and taxes they allegedly did not owe. Plaintiff Campbell

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

maintains that, on March 9, 2011, she received a letter from SKS indicating that she owed "certain taxes and related fees" on her lease with SKS's alleged predecessor-in-interest. ¶ 3, Ex. A. Campbell Decl. Shortly after

That lease was terminated in June 2007.

receiving the letter, SKS attempted to debit a bank account previously held by Plaintiff; it was ultimately unsuccessful because the bank account had been closed in 2007. Campbell Campbell was

contacted SKS about its letter and attempted debit.

told that the debit was for "unpaid taxes" and that, if she did not pay, the charge would be referred to a collection agency and that her credit report may be adversely impacted. Id. ¶ 5. SKS has not

substantiated the amount it asks Campbell to pay. Plaintiffs' application for a TRO is GRANTED. 231.) (Docket No.

Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that SKS is

withdrawing or attempting to withdraw funds to which it may not be entitled from Plaintiff Erin Campbell's and putative class members' bank accounts. Plaintiffs have also shown that SKS is threatening

Campbell and putative class members with taking adverse action concerning their credit report. Further, Plaintiffs have

demonstrated that they may suffer irreparable harm from SKS's conduct. SKS was apparently formed in March 11, 2011 and allegedly

is related to a set of shell companies operated by other Defendants in this action. The failure to enjoin SKS may result in, among

other things, Plaintiffs' and putative class members' inability to recover their funds at a later date. Plaintiffs have shown that SKS's response to

the balance of hardships tips in their favor.

Plaintiffs' application does not indicate that SKS will suffer any hardship if a TRO were to enter. Further, the public interest 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

weighs in favor of temporarily enjoining SKS. issued in a separate document.

The TRO will be

The Court GRANTS in part SKS's motion to extend time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. (Docket No. 227.) SKS may respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a

preliminary injunction on April 28, 2011 so long as it stipulates to extend the expiration date of the TRO to May 5, 2011. If SKS so

stipulates, Plaintiffs' reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction shall be due May 2, 2011. A hearing on

Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction will be held on May 5, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. If SKS declines to so stipulate, by April 12, 2011, SKS shall show cause why a preliminary injunction should not enter. event, Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction would be due April 14, 2011, and the motion would be heard on April 21, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. In that

Dated: April 8, 2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

3