Learning Experience Systems, LLC, The v. Loganathan et al
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. SO ORDERED BY Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/30/15. (cmalc1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02057-CMA-CBS
THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE SYSTEMS, LLC,
BERNARD ALLAGESWARAN LOGANATHAN,
KATIJAH BEEVE BINTE SHAIK ALAUDEEN, and
NESTERVILLE PROPERTIES, LLC,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff The Learning Experience
Systems, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction (the “Motion”) and the two supplements thereto. (Doc. ## 7, 17, 21.) This
Court, having reviewed the Motion, the supplements, all exhibits thereto, all arguments
made in relation thereto, the Court file, and applicable law, and for good cause shown,
herby concludes that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, the Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff is the Judgment Creditor and Defendants Bernard Allageswaran
Loganathan (“Loganathan”), Katijah Beeve Binte Shaik Alaudeen (“Alaudeen,” and
together with Loganathan, referred to herein as the “Judgment Debtors”) are Judgment
Debtors with respect to a Final Judgment entered by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on August 4, 2015 in the principal amount of
$928,606.00 (the “Florida Judgment”).
Judgment Creditors have not satisfied, in part or in whole, the Judgment against
Well aware of the Florida Judgment and Plaintiff’s efforts to domesticate the
same in Colorado, Judgment Debtors recorded a general warranty deed purporting to
convey residential property located at 23453 Painted Hills Street, Parker, Colorado
80138 (the “Colorado Property”) to Defendant Nesterville Properties, LLC (“Nesterville,”
and collectively with the Judgment Debtors, referred to herein as “Defendants”).
The Colorado Property has a fair market value of approximately $600,000, but
was transferred by the Judgment Creditors to Nesterville for stated consideration of only
Ten Dollars ($10.00). Nesterville’s co-managers have submitted affidavits indicating
they were not aware of the transfer and paid no consideration.
After this action alleging fraudulent transfer was commenced, an individual
named David Kruger purported to execute a warranty deed transferring the Colorado
Property back to Judgment Debtors from Nesterville.
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established: (a)
that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim for violations of the Colorado Uniform
Transfer Act, C.R.S. § 38-8-101, et seq.; (b) that it is suffering immediate and
irreparable injury due to the Judgment Debtors’ transfer of assets, which was done to
frustrate the Florida Judgment and/or render Judgment Debtors insolvent; (c) that this
injury to Plaintiff outweighs any harm caused as a result of an injunction; and (d) that
the entry of an injunction in this case is not adverse to the public interest.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it requests that Defendants,
along with their agents, servants, employees, confederates, assigns, attorneys, and/or
any persons acting in concert or participation with them, or having knowledge of this
Order by personal service or otherwise be, and hereby are, pending a trial on the
merits, preliminarily enjoined from further attempts to convey, sell, or otherwise transfer
ownership of the real property located in Douglas County, Colorado, at 23453 Painted
Hills Street, Parker, Colorado 80138.
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED to the extent it requests that Judgment Debtors be
enjoined from alienating or liquidating “any non-exempt property within this District.”
However, if Plaintiff can identify other specific assets within Colorado belonging to
Judgment Debtors, the Court will entertain a renewed request to expand the scope of
With regard to the bond requirement, the Court finds that Plaintiff need not post a
bond as security given that Plaintiff is presently a judgment creditor of Defendants
Loganathan and Alaudeen. RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1215 (10th Cir.
2009) (district courts have wide discretion in determining whether to require security
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65).
DATED: October 30, 2015
BY THE COURT:
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
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?