Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01304/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01304-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THUNDERBIRD RESORTS INC., a 

British Isles corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MURRAY JO ZIMMER, et al. 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR WRIT 

OF ATTACHMENT

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Thunderbird Resorts Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) ex 

parte application for right to attach order and writ of attachment, or in the 

alternative, for temporary protective order against Defendants Murray Jo Zimmer, 

Angular Investments Corporation, Mitzim Properties, Inc., and Taloma Zulu. See 

Doc. No. 3. No opposition has been filed. Based on the reasoning below, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a temporary protective order and DENIES, without 

prejudice, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for right to attach order and writ of 

attachment until such time as a noticed motion can be heard. 

BACKGROUND 

According to the complaint, Plaintiff partnered with defendant Angular, a 

Panamanian corporation, in 2002 and formed GTCR to operate casinos and related 

businesses in Costa Rica. Compl. ¶10. Plaintiff and defendant Angular agreed to split 

Case 3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS Document 11 Filed 07/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the profits equally. Compl. ¶10. Defendant Zimmer, who is defendant Angular’s 

principle, became GTCR’s president. Compl. ¶10. Defendant Zimmer also became 

Plaintiff’s “country manager” for its operations in Costa Rica. Compl. ¶10. 

Plaintiff alleges that from July 2007 to September 2014, defendant Zimmer 

caused GTCR to pay over $2 million to defendant Zulu, a Panamanian corporation. 

Compl. ¶11. Defendant Zimmer advised Plaintiff the payments were for legal and 

consulting fees. Compl. ¶11. However, Plaintiff contends that over $550,000 of the 

funds paid to defendant Zulu were redirected to defendant Zimmer in a matter of 

days. Compl. ¶14. Plaintiff did not agree that the payments made to defendant Zulu 

could be paid to defendant Zimmer. Compl. ¶13. 

Defendant Mitzim is a Nevada corporation owned by defendant Zimmer and 

Plaintiff’s former CEO. Compl. ¶12. After GTCR was sold to a third party, Plaintiff 

discovered that defendant Zulu made a 2010 payment of $107,975 to defendant 

Mitzim. Compl. ¶12. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mitzim used the $107,975 

payment to purchase an office building in Poway, California. Compl. ¶12. Defendant 

Zulu’s payment to defendant Mitzim was never disclosed to Plaintiff. Compl. ¶12. 

On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging 

causes of actions for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary 

duty, fraud, civil racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations (RICO) in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1961, and conversion. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff seeks an ex parte right to attach order and writ of attachment of real 

property located at 12255 Parkway Center Drive, Poway, California, 92064, in the 

amount of $1,000,000. Plaintiff contends that defendant Mitzim is the current 

record owner of the Poway office building. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks a 

temporary protective order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 

486.010 “to maintain the status quo until such time as a noticed motion can be 

Case 3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS Document 11 Filed 07/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

heard.” See Doc. No. 3-3 at 13. 

I. Legal Standards

A. Ex Parte Application for Writ of Attachment 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, state law provides all remedies when 

property is to be seized for the purpose of securing satisfaction of a judgment, unless 

a federal statute governs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 64. The effect of Rule 64 is to 

incorporate state law to determine the availability of prejudgment remedies for the 

seizure of property to secure satisfaction of a judgment ultimately entered. Granny 

Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 

of Alameda Co., 415 U.S. 423, 436 n. 10 (1974). 

Attachment is a prejudgment remedy that allows a creditor to have a lien on 

the debtor’s assets until final adjudication of the claim sued upon. The creditor must 

follow statutory guidelines in applying for the attachment and establish a prima facie

claim; and the court is required to make a preliminary determination of the merits of 

the dispute. Lorber Industries of Calif. v. Turbulence, Inc. 175 Cal. App. 3d 532 

(1985) (internal citation omitted). See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 484.090, 485.010(a) 

(discussing the statutory guidelines in applying for writ of attachment). 

B. Temporary Protective Order 

In conjunction with applying for a writ of attachment, California law permits a 

litigant to apply for a temporary protective order (“TPO”). See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 

§ 486.010(a). Section 486.010 provides that “[t]he application shall state what relief 

is requested and shall be supported by an affidavit, which may be based on 

information and belief, showing that the plaintiff would suffer great or irreparable 

injury (within the meaning of Section 485.010) if the temporary protective order 

were not issued.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 486.010. 

In issuing a temporary protective order in lieu of an ex parte writ of attachment, 

the Court must find that: (a) the claim upon which the application for attachment is 

Case 3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS Document 11 Filed 07/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

based is one upon which an attachment may be issued; (b) the plaintiff has 

established the probable validity of the claim upon which the application for the 

attachment is based; (c) the temporary protective order is not sought for a purpose 

other than the recovery upon the claim upon which the application for the 

attachment is based; and (d) the plaintiff will suffer great or irreparable injury (within 

the meaning of § 485.010) if the temporary protective order is not issued. See Cal. 

Code Civ. Pro. §§ 486.020, 486.030. 

II. Analysis 

Here, the Court finds that the issuance of a temporary protective order 

(“TPO”) is appropriate. First, the TPO application is based on a claim for which 

attachment may issue. The basis of Plaintiff’s application and the TPO are based on 

an express agreement between Plaintiff and defendant Angular to split profits from 

GTCR equally. The amount of Plaintiff’s claim is readily ascertainable as evidenced 

by Plaintiff’s financial records, closing statements, and bank records. See Cal. Civ. 

Proc. Code § 483.010. 

Second, Plaintiff has established that it is more likely than not that it will 

prevail on its claim. The record, including declarations accompanying Plaintiff’s 

application, indicate that plaintiff and defendant Angular agreed to split profits from 

GTCR equally, defendant Angular owed Plaintiff fiduciary duties, defendant Zimmer 

received funds from defendant Zulu through GTCR without Plaintiff’s consent, and 

defendant Zimmer admitted that defendant Zulu helped fund Mitzim’s purchase of 

the Poway building. 

Third, there is no indication that the TPO is requested for a purpose other 

than the recovery upon the claims against the defendants. 

Lastly, the Court finds that if the temporary protective order is not issued the 

plaintiff will suffer great or irreparable injury. Given that the allegations in this 

action sound in multiple occurrences of fraud, there is evidence that Mitzim’s Poway 

building is currently being marketed for sale, and because those persons who own and 

Case 3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS Document 11 Filed 07/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

control Mitzim’s Poway building live outside the United States, Plaintiff is in a 

tenuous position. Thus, if Mitzim’s Poway building is sold, Plaintiff has shown, 

under the circumstances of this case, a likelihood that the proceeds of the sale would 

be improperly dissipated or otherwise made unavailable to Plaintiff. See Cal. Civ. 

Proc. Code § 485.010(b)(1). 

Having satisfied the requirements under Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 486.020, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for a temporary protective order, and DENIES 

Plaintiff’s ex parte application for right to attach order and writ of attachment until 

such time as a noticed motion can be heard. See Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 486.030. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary protective order is 

GRANTED. 

2. Upon the filing of the statutorily required $10,000 undertaking by 

Plaintiff pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 489.210 and 489.220, the 

Court will issue the temporary protective order. 

3. Upon the filing of the undertaking, the Court will set a briefing schedule 

and a hearing date for Plaintiff’s application for right to attach order and 

writ of attachment. 

DATED: July 28, 2015 

______________________________ 

JOHN A. HOUSTON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01304-JAH-BGS Document 11 Filed 07/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5