Rajala v. Gardner et al

Filing 129

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 119 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 5/20/2011. (cm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ERIC C. RAJALA,
Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of
Generation Resources Holding Company,
LLC
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 09-2482-EFM

ROBERT H. GARDNER, et al.

Defendants.
_____________________________________
ERIC C. RAJALA,
Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of
Generation Resources Holding Company,
LLC
Plaintiff,

Case No. 10-2243-EFM

vs.
LOOKOUT WINDPOWER, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, for
a Preliminary Injunction or, Alternatively an Order that Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply (Doc.
119). The Court held a hearing on May 19, 2011, and the Court issued its ruling from the bench
denying Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff Eric Rajala, the Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Generation Resources Holding
Company, LLC (GRHC), seeks a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction from this
Court. In the Western District of Pennsylvania, a trial is scheduled to begin next week involving
several of the Defendants in this case.1 Plaintiff, in essence, requests this Court to stay that
proceeding because he believes the proceeds from the contract at issue is property of the bankruptcy
estate and relates to the case before the undersigned Judge. Plaintiff also requests, in the alternative
to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a ruling that any judgment obtained in
the Pennsylvania court cannot collaterally estop any part of Plaintiff’s claims in this case.
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion from the bench, and the reasoning for the Court’s order
is on the record. To summarize the Court’s holding, it denied Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction because the Court does not believe it has the jurisdiction
to stay a proceeding occurring in another federal district court (the Western District of
Pennsylvania). Furthermore, the Court does not believe it has the jurisdiction to issue an order that
collateral estoppel does not apply to this case because a judgment has not yet been issued in the
Pennsylvania case, and to rule that collateral estoppel does not apply would be an advisory opinion.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order, for a Preliminary Injunction or, Alternatively Order that Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
(Doc. 119) is DENIED.

1
The Court will not set forth the facts and how the parties are related in this Order. Suffice to say, it is
complicated.

-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2011.

ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-