Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WOODSIDE INVESTMENTS, INC.; 

S AND W STEEL FABRICATORS, 

INC.; DENNIS WOOD; and SUSAN 

WOOD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. (d.b.a. PAR 

FUNDING); FAST ADVANCE 

FUNDING, INC.; JOSEPH 

LAFORTE, an individual; and 

DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00042-JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On December 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Woodside Investments, Inc., 

S and W Steel Fabricators, Inc. (“S&W Steel”), Dennis Wood, and 

Susan Wood filed a suit against Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc. (“Par Funding”), Joseph LaForte, and Fast Advance 

Funding, Inc. (“Fast Advance”) in Yolo County Superior Court. 

Notice of Removal at 6-36 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. Defendants 

removed the case to federal court, invoking this Court’s

diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2. 

Dennis Wood is the president of Woodside Investments and the 

Vice President of S&W Steel; Susan Wood is the Vice President of 

Case 2:20-cv-00042-JAM-CKD Document 24 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 6
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

Woodside Investments and the President of S&W Steel. Memo. ISO 

TRO (“Mot.”) at 2, ECF No. 4-1. From December 2018 through 

October 2019, Woodside Investments and S&W Steel entered into six

contracts with Par Funding and one contract with Fast Advance. 

Mot. at 3. After Plaintiffs defaulted on these agreements, Par 

Funding and Fast Advance filed written Confessions of Judgment

with the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Mot. at 5. 

Plaintiffs signed these confessions as part of their contracts

with Defendants. Id. The Pennsylvania court entered a final 

judgment against Plaintiffs after they failed to challenge the 

confessions. Opp’n at 3-4, ECF No. 19. 

Defendants contend the contracts Plaintiffs signed were 

factoring agreements whereby Defendants purchased accounts 

receivable from Woodside Investments and S&W Steel. Id. 

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue the contracts amounted to 

illegal and unenforceable usurious loans. Mot. at 3-5, 7-10. 

Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and for 

an order to show good cause for why the Court should not issue a 

preliminary injunction. Amended Mot. For TRO, ECF No. 4. 

Plaintiffs’ aim was to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the 

Pennsylvania judgment in California. Id. The Court denied the 

motion in part, finding Plaintiffs were not entitled to a 

temporary restraining order because they failed to prove they 

faced an immediate risk of irreparable harm. Jan. 16, 2020 

Minute Order, ECF No. 6. The Court now considers Plaintiffs’

motion as a motion for preliminary injunction.1 Defendants’ 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

Case 2:20-cv-00042-JAM-CKD Document 24 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 6
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

opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs did not file 

a reply. Having read and considered the parties’ arguments, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 

I. BACKGROUND

As the briefs illustrate, the parties are deeply familiar 

with the factual and procedural underpinnings of this case. The 

Court does not need to restate that information here. 

II. OPINION

A. Judicial Notice

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of 

Woodside’s website: Michael & Company Precision Metal 

Fabricators at http://michaelandcofabricators.com/home. See

Defs.’ Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), ECF No. 20. The 

website is being offered to “indicate what Plaintiffs have put 

about themselves in the public realm”—specifically, that 

“Woodside and/or S and W holds itself out as a sophisticated 

company” that has “over 50 employees” and has been doing 

business since 1991. RJN at 2 (citing Ex. A. to RJN). 

Plaintiffs do not oppose this request.

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to “judicially 

notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because 

it (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial 

jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined 

from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 

 

scheduled for February 25, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00042-JAM-CKD Document 24 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 6
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

FRE 201(b). Moreover, it is well-established that courts may 

take judicial notice of matters of public record. Finder v. 

Leprino Foods Co., No. 1:13-cv-02059-AWI-BAM, 2019 WL 6894468, 

at *3 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2019). The Michael & Company 

Precision Metal Fabricators website is a matter of public record 

and, therefore, a proper subject of judicial notice. 

By judicially noticing the Michael & Company website, the 

Court takes as true that the website exists and makes certain 

representations about the company to the public. The Court does 

not, however, assume the veracity of any of the representations

the website contains. For example, the Court acknowledges that 

the Michael & Company Precision Metal Fabricators website 

(available at http://michaelandcofabricators.com/home) maintains 

that the company has “over 50 employees.” In doing so, the 

Court does not take as true that Michael & Company does, in 

fact, have over 50 employees. Bearing this nuance in mind, 

Defendants’ request is GRANTED.

B. Analysis

“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic 

remedy.’” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). 

Plaintiffs seeking this type of relief bear the burden of 

persuasion. Id. They must make “a clear showing” that they are

“likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 

that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an 

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Lopez, 

Case 2:20-cv-00042-JAM-CKD Document 24 Filed 02/21/20 Page 4 of 6
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

680 F.3d at 972. 

Because “[f]lexibility is the hallmark of equity 

jurisdiction,” the Ninth Circuit adopts a “sliding scale 

approach” to this four-factor test. Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies v. Cottrell, 732 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(modification in original). As its name suggests, the sliding 

scale approach requires courts to “balance” the Winter factors. 

Id. at 1131. Although this balancing does not free plaintiffs 

from making a “clear showing” on each of Winter’s requirements, 

it relieves them of any obligation to prove each factor to the 

same degree. Id. “For example, a stronger showing of 

irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing of 

likelihood of success on the merits.” Id.

Put simply, Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing on any 

of Winter’s factors. Plaintiffs do not cite to any legal 

authority that would permit a federal court to disturb a final 

state court judgment under these circumstances. Nor do any of 

the four cases Plaintiffs cite support a finding that they are 

likely to face irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, that 

the balance of equities tip in their favor, or that the public 

interest favors issuance of a preliminary injunction. Defendants 

identified these shortcomings, among others, in their opposition. 

See generally Opp’n. Plaintiffs nevertheless opted to forego 

filing a reply brief. 

Plaintiffs bore the burden of demonstrating they were 

entitled to the extraordinary relief they requested. They failed 

to meet this burden. As a result, Plaintiffs’ motion for 

preliminary injunction is denied. 

Case 2:20-cv-00042-JAM-CKD Document 24 Filed 02/21/20 Page 5 of 6
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

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020

Case 2:20-cv-00042-JAM-CKD Document 24 Filed 02/21/20 Page 6 of 6