Isozaki v. Resolute Capital Partners LTD et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND GRANTING REQUEST TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; denying #6 Ex Parte Application. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DONALD ISOZAKI,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
RESOLUTE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD. LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 21-cv-091-YGR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND GRANTING REQUEST TO
SHORTEN TIME ON MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Dkt. No. 6

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

Plaintiff Donald Isozaki has filed an ex parte motion (Dkt. No. 6) for temporary restraining
order and request for an order to show cause and set a hearing on a preliminary injunction to
restrain defendants Resolute Capital Partners LTD., LLC, Resolute Capital Managers, LLC,
Legacy Energy, LLC, PetroRock Mineral Holdings, LLC, HomeBound Resources, LLC,
HomeBound, Inc., Home Bound Financial Group, LP, Mercury Operating, LLC, Stefan Toth, Ted
Etheredge, Pablo Cortez, and Thomas Powell (collectively, the “RCP Parties”) from transferring,
removing, or disposing of $600,000 from their accounts in any other manner other than to transfer
Isozaki’s retirement savings back into Isozaki’s possession and control.
Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED on the grounds that
he has not established irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies, nor has he submitted
evidence establishing service of notice of the ex parte application. Typically, injunctive relief is
unavailable to compel payment of money past due under a contract or specific performance of a
past due monetary obligation. Great-W. Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 210
(2002); Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th
Cir. 1980) (threat of lost revenues insufficient for injunctive relief since economic harm is not

1

generally considered irreparable); cf. hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985, 993 (9th Cir.

2

2019) (threat of business “extinction,” beyond monetary damages, established irreparable harm

3

where plaintiff would have “no viable way to remain in business other than using [defendant’s]

4

public profile data for its [business services]”). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate why the claims here

5

would be an exception to that limitation on the equitable remedy he seeks, nor why such relief

6

should be granted on an ex parte basis under the circumstances.

7
8
9

Further, the representation in the notice of motion that papers had been served and sent to
defendants via email lacks evidentiary support or certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
However, based upon the evidence submitted, plaintiff’s Request for Order to Show Cause
re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction is construed as a request to hear his motion for preliminary

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

injunction on shortened time and on that basis is GRANTED.

12

Plaintiff shall file and serve any additional briefing or evidence in support of his motion for

13

preliminary injunction no later than January 11, 2021, along with proof of service of the

14

summons and complaint in this matter and this Order. Opposition shall be filed by January 18,

15

2021. Reply shall be filed by January 20, 2021. The hearing on the preliminary injunction shall

16

be held on January 26, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. via the Court’s Zoom videoconference platform.

17

This terminates Docket No. 6.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: January 8, 2021
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2