Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04584/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04584-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1451 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

The complaint, which focuses on the relief sought, is vague as to the precise nature

of plaintiff’s substantive claim. Although plaintiff refers to a “violation of ERISA § 4301,”

such section merely provides for a cause of action where one is “adversely affected by the

act or omission of any party under [ERISA].” See 29 U.S.C. § 1451(a)(1). For purposes of

the instant application, the Court has interpreted the complaint as a claim that defendant

has improperly charged plaintiff with having withdrawn from the subject plan.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC MARINE MAINTENANCE CO.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION

PLAN,

Defendant /

No. C-07-4584 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Application for Temporary Restraining Order and

Order to Show Cause Re Issuance of Preliminary Injunction,” filed September 5, 2007.

Having reviewed the papers submitted in support of the application, the Court hereby

DENIES the application for the following reasons:

1. Plaintiff has not submitted proof that plaintiff has provided defendant with notice

of the instant application, nor has plaintiff set forth any reason why defendant should not be

entitled to notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).

2. Even assuming plaintiff has established a likelihood of success on the merits of

its claim or, alternatively, has raised serious questions going to the merits of its claim,1 see

Case 3:07-cv-04584-MMC Document 6 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 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

2

If acceleration of the total amount claimed due is the harm plaintiff seeks to avoid,

the Court notes that such possible consequence is unlikely to occur until at least 60 days

have passed from the date plaintiff receives notice from defendant that plaintiff has failed to

make a quarterly payment. See 29 U.S.C. § 1399(c)(5).

2

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 446 F. 3d 984, 990 (9th Cir. 2006), plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate a possibility of irreparable harm or, that the balance of hardships tips

sharply in its favor. Rather, plaintiff states in the most general and conclusory fashion that

if plaintiff were to make the first challenged quarterly payment, plaintiff might be unable to

continue in or expand its business. (See McLeod Decl. ¶ 11.) Moreover, plaintiff has made

no showing that it would suffer any harm if it does not make the challenged quarterly

payment.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04584-MMC Document 6 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 2