Goldsmith, Esq. v. Internal Revenue Service et al

Filing 23

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/12/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 JONATHAN GOLDSMITH, ESQ., an individual, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, a United ) States Governmental Entity; JPMORGAN ) CHASE BANK, N.A., a National Association; ) DOE individuals I-X; and ROE corporations I- ) X, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _______________________________________) Case No. 2:14-cv-01297-GMN-NJK ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCKET ENTRY 7) 18 19 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket 20 Entry 7) (the “Motion”). The following parties were present at the August 26, 2014 hearing set by 21 the Court regarding the Motion: 22 (a) himself; 23 24 Plaintiff Jonathan Goldsmith, Esq., an attorney licensed in Nevada and representing (b) Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), appeared by and through its 25 counsel of record, Kent. F. Larsen, Esq., of the law firm of Smith Larsen & Wixom; 26 and, 27 28 (c) Virginia Cronan Lowe, Esq., of the United States Department of Justice, appeared on behalf of the United States of America; 1 After reviewing the pleadings and briefs on file in this case related to the Motion, and after 2 hearing the arguments of Plaintiff, Mr. Larsen and Ms. Cronan Lowe at the August 26, 2014 hearing, 3 and good cause appearing therefor, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 5 (1) 6 an injunction to restrain Chase from setting off on the IOLTA account which was 7 maintained at Chase in the name of Jonathan B. Goldsmith, Ltd., a Nevada 8 corporation, as Plaintiff acknowledged at the August 26, 2014 hearing that all funds 9 10 the Motion is denied, without prejudice, as moot, insofar as Plaintiff has requested had been withdrawn from the IOLTA account; (2) 11 the Motion is granted pending any final judgment/decision on the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Chase is precluded (pending such judgment/decision) 12 from reporting Plaintiff, in his personal capacity, to Chexsystems; 13 14 15 16 17 18 (3) the Motion is granted pending any final judgment/decision on the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Chase is precluded (pending such judgment/decision) from setting off on the personal accounts of Plaintiff to satisfy any overdraft/negative balances in the accounts of Jonathan B. Goldsmith, Ltd., a Nevada corporation; IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65(c) the 19 injunctive relief outlined above is deemed effective only upon Plaintiff posting a bond (or cash 20 21 FIVE HUNDRED equivalent) with the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $____________________, as required by ($500.00) DOLLARS Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65(c), for payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered 22 by Defendant Chase, in the event that Defendant Chase is found to have been wrongfully enjoined; 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED this 12th day of September, 2014. DATED this _____ day of September, 2014. ________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge __________________________________ United States District Court GLORIA M. NAVARRO United States District Court Judge 2 1 Approved as to form: 2 3 4 5 \s\ Jonathan B. Goldsmith, Jonathan B. Goldsmith, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11805 617 Hoover Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Plaintiff in Proper Person 6 7 8 Approved as to form: 9 SMITH LARSEN & WIXOM 10 11 12 13 14 \s \Kent F. Larsen, ___ Kent F. Larsen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3463 Hills Center Business Park 1935 Village Center Circle Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Atorneys for Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?