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)

Download PDF
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?