Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00199/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00199-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERN VINEYARDS, INC., a California 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

AM GROUP, INC., a California 

corporation, and CHRIS KIM, an 

individual,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00199-NONE-JLT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; 

AND ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW 

CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. No. 3)

On February 7, 2020, plaintiff Kern Vineyards, Inc., filed a complaint and motion for 

temporary restraining order (“TRO”) under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act 

(“PACA”), seeking “ex parte”

1

temporary injunctive relief to prevent defendants AM Group, Inc., 

(“AM Group”) and Chris Kim from dissipating assets held in a statutory trust for plaintiff. (Doc. 

Nos. 1, 3.) As of the date and time of entry of this order, no defendant has filed an opposition to 

the pending motion or otherwise attempted to communicate with the court. Having reviewed the 

 

1 Although the request was styled as ex parte, plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to provide 

notice to defendants via telephone, email, and overnight delivery. (Doc. No. 11.) The overnight 

delivery tracking number indicates all relevant documents were delivered at 9:43 am on February 

11, 2020, to the front door of defendants’ business location in Fresno, California, the same 

address for defendant listed with the California Secretary of State. (Id., Ex. 2.)

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 11
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

2

record and the relevant authorities, the court grants the motion for a TRO and orders defendants 

to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

BACKGROUND

Between August 9 and October 4, 2019, plaintiff sold table grapes to defendants totaling 

an invoiced amount of $146,045.00.

2

 (Doc. No. 7 at ¶¶ 2, 11, Declaration of Thomas Buckley

(“Buckley Decl.”).) On October 1, 2019, the parties met to discuss delinquent payments. (Id. at 

¶ 21.) At that time, defendants provided plaintiff assurances that payments on the invoices 

disputed in this lawsuit would be forthcoming. (Id.) Plaintiff received no further 

communications or payments from defendants in October or November 2019. (Id. at ¶ 22.) On

December 15, 2019, Kim assured plaintiff that payment would be made. (Id. at ¶ 23.) 

Nonetheless, plaintiff still has yet to receive payment on the disputed invoices. (Id.) 

As a result, plaintiff initiated a complaint with the United States Department of 

Agriculture (“USDA”). (Id.) Based on the fact that there was at least one other complaint 

submitted against AM Group, USDA advised plaintiff to file suit to enforce its rights. (Id.) 

In addition to the principle sum plaintiff claims is owed, the relevant invoices each 

disclose a contractual finance charge of 1.5% per month. (Id., Ex. 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel has 

calculated the cumulative finance charge due to plaintiff to be $7,850.18 through January 31, 

2020. (Doc. No. 4 at ¶¶ 14, 16, Declaration of Craig A. Tristao (“Tristao Decl.”).) This 

calculation appears to be accurate. Finally, the invoices contain language permitting plaintiff to 

add to the amount owed any “necessary collection costs, including attorney’s fees.” (Buckley 

Decl., Ex. 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that to date he has expended 24 hours on this matter at 

a billable rate of $300.00 per hour for a total of $7,200.00. (Tristao Decl. at ¶ 13.) In addition, 

plaintiff has incurred filing fees in the amount of $400.00 to initiate this lawsuit. (Id.) The 

expended time, hourly rate, and costs appear facially reasonable/allowable under the 

/////

 

2 According to plaintiff, defendants purchased table grapes from plaintiff in the past. Plaintiff 

concedes that defendants raised concerns about a quality issue for a prior shipment that is not the 

subject of this dispute and is not included in the $146,045.00 plaintiff claims to be owed. 

(Buckley Decl. at ¶ 20.)

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 11
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

3

circumstances. In sum, the principal plus finance charges, attorney’s fees and costs totals 

$161,495.18.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. PACA

“Congress enacted PACA in 1930 to promote fair trading practices in the produce 

industry.” Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh Produce, Inc., 222 F.3d 132, 135 (3d Cir. 

2000) (citation omitted). In particular, the statute requires that “perishable agricultural 

commodities received by a commission merchant, dealer, or broker in all transactions, and all 

inventories of food or other products derived from perishable agricultural commodities, and any 

receivables or proceeds from the sale of such commodities or products, shall be held by such 

commission merchant, dealer, or broker in trust for the benefit of all unpaid suppliers or sellers of 

such commodities or agents involved in the transaction, until full payment of the sums owing in 

connection with such transactions has been received by such unpaid suppliers, sellers, or agents.” 

7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2). If a seller of produce is not paid, it must give written notice of its intent to 

preserve its rights, which may be accomplished by including a statutorily specified notice in its 

invoices. See 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c); Tanimura & Antle, Inc., 222 F.3d at 136. Any failure to “make 

full payment promptly” in respect to a transaction is unlawful. 7 U.S.C. § 499b(4). Any violation 

of § 499b subjects the buyer to liability for any damages caused by the violation. 7 U.S.C. 

§ 499e(a). Moreover, federal regulations state that all dealers “are required to maintain trust 

assets in a manner that such assets are freely available to satisfy outstanding obligations to sellers 

of perishable agricultural commodities.” 7 C.F.R. § 46.46(d)(1). District courts are specifically 

given jurisdiction to hear “actions by trust beneficiaries to enforce payment from the trust” and 

“actions by the Secretary to prevent and restrain dissipation of the trust.” 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(5). 

The trust formed by PACA from the dealer’s assets is “a single, undifferentiated trust for the 

benefit of all sellers and suppliers.” In re Kornblum & Co., Inc., 81 F.3d 280, 286 (2d Cir. 1996). 

B. TRO Standard

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is “substantially identical” to the 

standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & 

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 3 of 11
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

4

Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive 

relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 

1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); 

see also Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2011) (“After Winter, 

‘plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a 

preliminary injunction.”); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 

(9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate 

when a plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the 

balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 

632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 97 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (en banc)).3 The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving these 

elements. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). Finally, an 

injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 

plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 

ANALYSIS

District courts in the Ninth Circuit have regularly found TROs warranted in the PACA 

context, and routinely conclude that the prospect of statutory trust assets being depleted 

constitutes irreparable injury. See, e.g., CP Produce, LLC v. Quality Fresh Farms, Inc., No. 1:18-

cv-00077 DAD EPG, 2018 WL 1980749, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018); Chula Brand CA, Corp. 

v. Martinez, 17cv37-JLS (KSC), 2017 WL 107672, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2017); Newland N. 

Am. Foods, Inc. v. H.P. Skolnick, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00934 EJD, 2013 WL 792672, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 4, 2013); Herb Fresh, LLC v. GR Prods., LLC, No. 5:12-cv-03669 EJD, 2012 WL 

 

3

 The Ninth Circuit has found that this “serious question” version of the circuit’s sliding scale 

approach survives “when applied as part of the four-element Winter test.” Alliance for Wild 

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011). “That is, ‘serious questions going to the 

merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a 

preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable 

injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1135.

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 4 of 11
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

5

2906592, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012); Pittman v. Stow Food – Navajo, Inc., No. 12cv1670-

IEG (WMC), 2012 WL 12885231, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2012); T.Q.M. Food Serv., Inc. v. 

Santanas Grill, Inc., No. 12cv1254-IEG (MDD), 2012 WL 12872452, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 

2012); Batth v. Market 52, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-1806 AWI SKO, 2011 WL 5240439, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Nov. 1, 2011); F.T. Produce, Inc. v. AGWA, Inc., No. 11-CV-102 JLS (WVG), 2011 WL 

677259, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011); Rey Produce SFO, Inc. v. Mis Amigos Meat Market, Inc., 

No. C 08-1518 VRW, 2008 WL 1885738, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (granting preliminary 

injunction, and noting TRO was previously granted).4 

Here, plaintiff has shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. Plaintiff 

persuasively asserts that defendants are “dealers” within the meaning of PACA. (See Buckley 

Decl. at ¶¶ 6–9.) Among other things, plaintiff has presented evidence that during the relevant 

timeframe defendant AM Group operated under USDA PACA license number 20160590, which 

lists Kim as the principal for AM Group. (Id. at ¶ 9 & Ex. 2.) Plaintiff has likewise produced 

evidence that during the relevant timeframe it operated under PACA license number 20150701. 

(Id. at ¶ 27.)

Plaintiff further demonstrates that the produce at issue was sold in interstate commerce, as 

required by 7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(8). (Id. at ¶ 15 & Ex. 3.) The invoices sent to defendants contain 

the statutorily required language to ensure plaintiff preserved its right to the benefits of the 

statutory trust under 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(4). (Id. at ¶ 28 & Ex. 3.) Plaintiff has likewise produced 

evidence that the invoices it seeks payment for have not been paid. (Id. at ¶¶ 20–23 & Ex. 3.) 

Invoices totaling $146,045.00, reflecting table grape shipments sold to defendant AM Group, are 

attached (id., Ex. 3), and counsel has provided support for the requested, contractually allowable 

interest, attorney’s fees, and costs (see Tristao Decl. at ¶¶ 13–16.) Accordingly, and in light of 

 

4 Some courts have declined to grant PACA TROs on an ex parte basis without a strong showing 

of the defendant’s general financial instability and evidence that defendant is dissipating the funds 

that are intended to be held in trust for the plaintiff. See Fortune Farm, Inc. v. S. Cal. Produce, 

Inc., No. CV16-3027 PSG (JEMx), 2016 WL 9185317, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2016); W. Onion 

Sales, Inc. v. Gonzalez Transp. & Foods, Inc., No. SACV 13-0156 DOC (MLGx), 2013 WL 

12122416, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013). As mentioned, while the instant motion was 

initially sought ex parte, defendants have since been given notice of this lawsuit, although proof 

of formal service has not yet been received by the court.

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 5 of 11
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

6

the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the court finds it is likely plaintiff will succeed on the 

merits of its PACA claim.

Plaintiff has also shown a likelihood of irreparable injury in the form of dissipation of the 

trust assets. Plaintiff’s sales manager, Thomas Buckley, declares that Kim admitted that the table 

grapes in dispute were sold to a company in Korea, possibly to a related family company. 

(Buckley Decl.§ at ¶ 25.) Any proceeds from those sales would therefore be trust assets. See 7 

U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2). However, the fact that defendants repeatedly broke promises to remit even 

partial payments to plaintiff suggests to Buckley that the trust assets have been or are being 

dissipated. (Buckley Decl. ¶ 25.) In addition, Buckley “is informed and believe[s] that AM 

Group is suffering severe financial difficulties and that PACA trust assets rightfully belonging to 

Plaintiff are being dissipated, possibly forever beyond Plaintiff’s reach.” (Id.) As identified 

above, courts routinely accept the dissipation of assets from the statutory trust as indicative of 

irreparable injury.

The balance of equities thus tips clearly in favor of plaintiff here. Plaintiff is statutorily 

entitled to a trust in the proceeds of any sales from the produce it shipped until the outstanding 

invoices are paid in full. See 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2). Defendants’ failure to respond to the motion 

for a TRO results in a failure on their part to demonstrate any hardship they will suffer by being 

forced to not dissipate the trust assets. 

Lastly, the issuance of an injunction here would be in the public interest. Congress 

specifically passed this statute because it had found there was “a burden on commerce in 

perishable agricultural commodities.” 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(1); Tanimura & Antle, Inc., 222 F.3d at 

135 (“In particular, Congress intended to protect small farmers and growers who were especially 

vulnerable to the practices of financially irresponsible commission merchants, dealers, and 

brokers.”). Given plaintiff’s high likelihood of success on the merits and the Congressional 

directive in passing PACA, the public interest will be served by granting the TRO here. 

Rule 65 states a court may only issue a TRO “if the movant gives security in an amount 

that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have 

been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Because the only evidence before 

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 6 of 11
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

7

the court indicates the invoices are due and owing, and defendants’ failure to participate results in 

the absence of any showing of any hardship, the court concludes no bond or posting of security is 

required of plaintiff at this time. 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

For the reasons set forth above:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants AM Group, Inc., and Chris Kim appear in 

Courtroom 4 of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, 

located at 2500 Tulare Street, Seventh Floor, Fresno, CA 93721 on February 21, 2020, at 1:30 

p.m., to show cause why they, and their agents, bankers, subsidiaries, successors, assignees, 

principals, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, attorneys, and representatives should not 

be restrained and preliminarily enjoined during the pendency of this action, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 65, from engaging in, committing, or performing directly and indirectly, 

any and all of the following acts:

A. Removing, withdrawing, transferring, assigning or selling to any other person or 

entity, the proceeds from the sales of any or all existing or future inventories of food or other 

products derived from perishable (including frozen) agricultural commodities, and/or receipts of 

payment for products sold prior to the date of this order and/or otherwise disposing of assets, 

books or funds;

B. Taking any other action whatsoever which causes, has the effect of causing, or 

which otherwise dissipates plaintiff’s beneficiary interests in PACA trust assets. 7 U.S.C. §499e, 

et seq.;

C. Taking any other action whatsoever which violates 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(1) through 

(4), inclusive, and/or 7 U.S.C. §499b(4) [PACA § 2].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants and any owners, officers, directors, 

shareholders, employees, agents, subsidiaries, successors, assignees, principals, assignors, 

attorneys and persons acting in concert with them, appear at the same time and place to show 

cause, if any they have, why they should not be commanded by order of this court and required to 

distribute PACA trust assets in the amount of at least $161,495.18, consisting of the principal sum 

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 7 of 11
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

8

due of $146,045.00, plus contractual finance charges through January 31, 2020 in the amount of 

$7,850.18, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $7,200.00, plus filing fees of $400.00, 

owing to plaintiff.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending the hearing and determination of the foregoing 

Order to Show Cause, defendants and their officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, 

bankers, subsidiaries, successors, assignees, principals, attorneys, and persons acting in concert 

with them shall be and hereby are prevented from transferring, withdrawing or in any other 

manner removing PACA trust assets, including funds on deposit in banking accounts held by or 

on behalf of defendants, from defendants’ banking accounts, including but not limited to 

defendants’ accounts held at Wells Fargo Bank or any other banking account standing in 

defendants’ name or for its benefit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending the hearing and determination of the foregoing 

Order to Show Cause, and continuing thereafter, defendant and its owners, officers, directors, 

shareholders, employees, agents, subsidiaries, successors, assignees, principals, assignors, 

attorneys and persons acting in concert with them, shall be preliminarily enjoined from engaging 

in, committing, or performing directly and indirectly, any and all of the following acts:

D. Removing, withdrawing, transferring, assigning or selling to any other person or 

entity, the proceeds from the sales of any or all existing or future inventories of food or other 

products derived from perishable agricultural commodities, and/or receipts of payment for 

products or crops sold prior to the date of this order and/or otherwise disposing of assets, books or 

funds;

E. Taking any other action whatsoever which causes, has the effect of causing, or 

which otherwise dissipates plaintiff’s beneficiary interests in the trust assets;

F. Taking any other action whatsoever which violates 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(1) through 

(4), inclusive, and 7 U.S.C. §499b(4) [PACA § 2].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event defendants lack sufficient funds to 

promptly deposit the sums described above, defendants shall be and hereby are required and 

ordered to:

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 8 of 11
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

9

G. Immediately account to the court and plaintiff for all assets of the PACA trust 

from commencement of defendants’ business through the date of this Order.

H. Endorse any checks made, endorsed or paid, wire transfers, and cash receipts to 

defendants which are trust assets and which are in their possession or obtainable by defendants at 

the time of the entry of this Order, or which defendants obtains or which become obtainable by 

defendants after the entry of this Order, including but not limited to checks representing payment 

for sales of inventory, and shall deliver said assets within 48 hours of defendants’ receipt of them 

to plaintiff’s counsel as set forth above. Likewise, defendants shall deliver any cash assets of the 

PACA trust which are in its possession or are obtainable by defendants at the time of the entry of 

this order, or which defendants obtain or which become obtainable by defendants after entry of 

this Order, within 48 hours of defendants’ receipt of them to plaintiff’s counsel.

I. Deposit all checks, wire transfers and cash receipts received after the issuance of 

the order with the court or in Wells Fargo, which shall be frozen until there are sufficient assets 

set aside to pay plaintiff in the amount of $164,656.50.

J. File weekly with this court satisfactory evidence of compliance with the terms of 

this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending the hearing and determination of the foregoing 

Order to Show Cause, and continuing thereafter, plaintiff and its counsel, agents, or 

representatives, shall have upon two-weeks’ notice to defendants, full and complete and 

continuing access to all of defendant’s books and records, which shall include but not necessarily 

be limited to, defendant’s accounts receivable and payable ledgers, invoices, ledgers, computer 

runs, bank statements and canceled checks, relating to defendants’ business and financial status 

from commencement of defendants’ business activities forward for the purposes of verifying 

defendants’ accountings required by this Order and for enforcement of this Order. Defendants 

shall, upon 48 hours’ notice by plaintiff’s counsel, allow inspection and copying of the books and 

records of said defendants by plaintiff or its representatives at defendants’ place of business. 

Defendants will be required to report to the court and to plaintiff’s counsel on a weekly basis to 

the amount and status of its receivables and payments received.

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 9 of 11
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

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending the hearing and determination of the foregoing 

Order to Show Cause, and continuing thereafter, plaintiff shall be entitled to depose, under oath, 

at reasonable times and places, upon at least 48 hours’ notice, defendants and/or defendants’ 

principals, owners, directors, officers, shareholders, employees, agents and accountants 

concerning any matter pertaining to any accounting due pursuant to this Order, any books or 

records which plaintiff is entitled to inspect under this Order, the trust assets or any of defendants’ 

business assets, and/or defendants’ business practices, procedures or operations from 

commencement of defendants’ business activities.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wells Fargo Bank, or any other bank found to be 

holding funds standing in defendant’s name, release information to plaintiffs’ counsel about the 

above-described accounts, including the amounts contained in the accounts, in confidence and 

only to the extent necessary to verify compliance with the terms of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no bond shall be required to be posted by plaintiff 

before the Temporary Restraining Order is effective.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall serve defendant with copies of this Order 

and all pleadings and other papers in support of the Order on or before Friday, February 14, 

2020, by overnight courier service with verification of receipt. Defendants shall file an 

Opposition, if any, to the Order to Show Cause on or before noon (Pacific Time) on

Wednesday, February 19, 2020, and shall personally serve plaintiff’s counsel with a copy of 

said opposition by said deadline. Plaintiff shall file and serve its reply to defendant’s opposition, 

if any, on or before noon (Pacific Time) on Thursday, February 20, 2020.

Defendants are warned that failure to timely file an opposition waives any right to be 

heard in opposition at the hearing on the pending motion and may result in the hearing being 

vacated and the matter submitted for decision on the papers. See Local Rule 230(c); see also

Goldberg v. Barreca, 720 F. App’x 877, 878 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding district court did not abuse 

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 10 of 11
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

11

its discretion by failing to hold evidentiary hearing when initially ruling on preliminary injunction 

motion because it did not need to resolve any factual disputes).5

Defendants are further notified of its right to apply to the court for modification or 

dissolution of this Temporary Restraining Order on two (2) days’ notice or such shorter notice as 

the court may allow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) and Local Rule 231(c)(8).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

5 Citation to this unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion is appropriate pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 

36-3(b). 

Case 1:20-cv-00199-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/12/20 Page 11 of 11