TQM Food Services, Inc. v. Freedom Market, Inc. et al
Filing
14
Temporary Restraining ORDER. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 11/23/2015. (smy)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
TQM FOOD SERVICES, INC., a
California corporation,
12
Case No.: 3:15-cv-1600-H-DHB
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
17
FREEDOM MARKET, INC., a California
corporation doing business as Somos
Tacos & Atomic Wings; SALEM SOMO,
an individual; and FEDDWON SOMO, an
individual,
18
Defendants.
15
16
19
20
Pursuant to the Court’s November 23, 2015, order granting Plaintiff’s motion to
21
modify the temporary restraining order, the following temporary restraining order is in
22
effect:
23
1.
Defendants and their respective agents, attorneys, officers, assigns, and any
24
other of their banking institutions must not pay, withdraw, transfer, assign, or sell any and
25
all existing PACA trust assets or otherwise dispose of corporate or personal assets to any
26
creditors, persons, or entities until further order of the Court.
27
28
2.
Pending further order of the Court, no banking institution holding funds for
any Defendant shall pay, transfer, or permit assignment or withdrawal of any existing
1
3:15-cv-1600-H-DHB
1
PACA trust assets held on behalf of Defendants. Further, pending further order of this
2
Court, no banking institution holding funds for any Defendant shall pay, transfer, or permit
3
assignment or withdrawal of the corporate or personal assets of any Defendants without
4
this Court’s express written consent.
5
3.
This order is binding upon the parties to this action, their officers, agents,
6
servants, employees, banks, attorneys, and all other persons or entities who receive actual
7
notice of this order by personal service or otherwise. In this regard, Defendants shall serve
8
a copy of this order on all financial institutions with which any of the Defendants does any
9
business, may do business with, or who may be holding any PACA trust assets for or on
10
behalf of any of the Defendants.
11
4.
Rent payments of $2,250 that would otherwise be due to Defendants from
12
David Ruiz will be directed to Plaintiff on December 1, 2015, or as soon thereafter as such
13
payments would otherwise be due to Defendants. Rent payments of $2,250 that would
14
otherwise be due to Defendants from David Ruiz will be directed to Plaintiff on January 1,
15
2016, or as soon thereafter as such payments would otherwise be due to Defendants. Rent
16
payments of $1,500 that would otherwise be due to Defendants from David Ruiz will be
17
directed to Plaintiff on February 1, 2016, or as soon thereafter as such payments would
18
otherwise be due to Defendants. The rent payments described in this paragraph are for
19
David Ruiz’s occupation of the premises where the debt that is the subject of this litigation
20
arose.
21
22
23
5.
Due to the nature of the issues in this action, the Court dispenses with the bond
requirement contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
6.
This temporary restraining order is effective on the date and time of filing and,
24
based on the parties’ consent as provided in their settlement agreement, remains in effect
25
until Defendants have paid Plaintiff $6,000. The $6,000 due to Plaintiff consists of $4,500
26
due pursuant to the parties’ July 27, 2015, settlement agreement and $1,500 in attorney’s
27
fees due pursuant to the Court’s November 23, 2015, order granting Plaintiff’s motion to
28
modify the temporary restraining order.
2
3:15-cv-1600-H-DHB
1
7.
If Defendants pay Plaintiff the sum of $6,000, Plaintiff must immediately file
2
a document informing the Court of this fact so the temporary restraining order can be
3
dissolved or modified as appropriate.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
DATED: November 23, 2015
6
7
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:15-cv-1600-H-DHB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?