Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-mc-00091/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-mc-00091-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 999
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1 

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. MISC. 02-91 DFL GGH 

O R D E R 

On October 12, 2006, Daniel G. Schmidt (“Schmidt”) filed an 

ex parte petition for a temporary restraining order against 

Lawrence J. Warfield (“Warfield”), a receiver appointed by the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas 

in Sec. and Exch. Comm. v. Res. Dev. Int’l, 3:02-CV-0605-R. In 

his petition, Schmidt asserts that Warfield improperly seized 

his assets under the authority of an order from the federal 

court, even though he was not a party to the Texas litigation. 

He also asserts that Second Opinion Services has been similarly 

mistreated. Schmidt does not explain his relationship to Second 

Opinion Services or to the Texas litigation. 

Case 2:02-mc-00091-DFL-GGH Document 3 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 2
2 

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

Schmidt’s petition for a temporary restraining order is 

defective for a number of reasons. First, he has not complied 

with either F. R. Civ. P 65(b) or Local Rule 65-231(a)and (c). 

He has not filed a complaint, he has not shown that immediate 

and irreparable injury will result before the adverse party can 

be heard in opposition, and he has not certified that efforts 

made to give notice to the adverse party. Second, he fails to 

explain his connection to the Texas litigation or to Second 

Opinion Services. Third, he provides no grounds upon which to 

conclude that Warfield will again enter his property or violate 

his rights. Fourth, he appears to believe that this court has 

appellate jurisdiction over the orders of another federal 

district court. It does not. 

Finally, upon review of the docket in the Texas case, it is 

apparent that Schmidt was a party to the Texas litigation and 

has had judgment entered against him. His petition in this 

court is a dishonest attempt to evade that judgment. 

A copy of this order will be provided to the district court in 

Texas. 

Schmidt’s motion for a temporary restraining order is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/16/2006 

______________________________ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-mc-00091-DFL-GGH Document 3 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2