Ally Bank et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 610

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 600 Motion for TRO and Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

Case No.: 11-CV-896 YGR
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT.
NO. 600)

vs.
JAMES C. CASTLE AKA J. CHRISTOPHER
CASTLE, et al,
Defendants.

14

The Motion by Plaintiff Credit One, LLC (“Plaintiff”) for Temporary Restraining Order and
15

Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue against defaulted defendant
16

Curtis Guillotte (Dkt. No. 600) is DENIED.
17

Plaintiff has not submitted evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of success on the
18

merits of any claim. While Plaintiff contends that it will succeed on its “Constructive Trust Claim,”
19

the Court has already ruled that there is no “claim” for a constructive trust, only other legal claims as
20

to which constructive trust may be (and is) pleaded as a remedy. (See Order Denying Motion to Stay,
21

Granting Motion to Strike and Granting In Part Motion to Dismiss With Leave To Amend, August
22

20, 2012, Dkt. No. 251, at 31:17-24.) The claims alleged against Guillotte in the Fourth Amended
23

Complaint are for fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and negligence. Plaintiff does not attempt to
24

establish a likelihood of success on the elements of any of those claims. Further, Plaintiff offers no
25

authority to establish the propriety of a “constructive trust” over money rather than real or personal
26

property in which the defendant “holds title or some interest.” See Kraus v. Willow Park Pub. Golf
27

Course, 73 Cal. App. 3d 354, 373 (1977) (interest in real property).
28

1

As to irreparable injury, Plaintiff has not established entitlement to the extraordinary remedy

2

of an asset freeze or that a damages remedy would be insufficient under the circumstances. “While a

3

court generally has the power to preserve the status quo by equitable means [and] [a] preliminary

4

injunction is such a means… the equitable power to freeze assets does not exist in all cases: it exists

5

only as ancillary relief necessary to accomplish complete justice.” Reebok Int'l, Ltd. v. Marnatech

6

Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The

7

argument that a defendant might not have sufficient funds to pay a money judgment is not, standing

8

alone, sufficient reason to grant an asset freeze.

9

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Guillotte is not entitled to notice of the motion to freeze the bank

notice, he would empty the bank account before the matter could be heard.” (Motion at 8:25-9:3.)

12
Northern District of California

account because he is in default in this action1 and his “prior behavior indicates that if he received

11

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff offers no legal authority to support the first proposition, and no evidence to support the

13

second.

14

For these reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

This Order terminates Docket No. 600.

17

Date: March 4, 2014
____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

Guillotte was served pursuant to the Order Granting Motion for Service by Publication of
Summons on Defendant Curtis Guillotte filed on September 12, 2013. (See Dkt. No. 519.) That
Order required that the Summons and Fourth Amended Complaint be mailed to 1242 Skyline Drive,
Laguna Beach, California (the “Skyline Address”) and 638 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente,
California (the “Camino Address”). The Order also required that the documents be e-mailed to any email addresses discovered for Guillotte. Plaintiff then filed a motion for default on November 21,
2013, and supplemental declaration November 27, 2013, stating that the Fourth Amended Complaint
and summons were mailed and e-mailed as required and the e-mails were returned as bad addresses.
Guillotte’s default was entered thereafter.
2