Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00120/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00120-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESSNA EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

LORIMAC, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-00120 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

Now before the Court are Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a temporary restraining and

request for an appointment of a receiver. To date, Defendant has not filed any opposition. 

Nevertheless, having carefully considered Plaintiffs’ application, and finding this application

suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-6, the Court denies

the application because Plaintiffs have failed to make an adequate showing, supported by

admissible evidence, of immediate irreparable harm necessitating the issuance of a TRO and

further have failed to demonstrate the need to preserve the status quo pending final resolution. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

First, it is not clear that Plaintiffs provided Defendant with notice of its ex parte

application and request for the appointment of a receiver or that Plaintiffs had a sufficient

justification for not providing such notice. The Local Rules require that “[u]nless relieved by

order of a Judge for good cause shown, on or before the day of an ex parte motion for a

temporary restraining order, counsel applying for the temporary restraining order must deliver 

Case 3:07-cv-00120-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

notice of such motion to opposing counsel or party.” N.D. Civil Local Rule 65-1(b). The Court

may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or

that party’s attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) where: “(1) it clearly appears

from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that

party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court

in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons

supporting the claim that notice should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Here, Plaintiffs

fail to make any showing that they provided notice to Defendant or that notice could not have

been provided to Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and

Northern District Local Civil Rule 65-1(b).

Second, Plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient showing regarding the possibility of

irreparable injury. “To prevail on a motion for temporary restraining order, as with a

preliminary injunction, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating either 1) a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or 2) the

existence of serious questions as to success on the merits and irreparable injury along with a

sharp tipping of the balance of hardships in the moving party's favor.” Bespaq Corp. v.

Haoshen Trading Co., 2004 WL 2043522, *1 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 13, 2004) (citing Sammartano v.

First Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir.2003)). “Because injunctive relief

prior to trial is a harsh and extraordinary remedy, it is to be granted sparingly and only in cases

where the issues are clear and well defined and the plaintiff has established a reasonable

certainty of prevailing at trial.” Watermark, Inc. v. United Stations, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. 31, 32-

33 (C.D. Cal. 1982) (citing Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141 (9th Cir.

1964)).

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has breached agreements regarding several

mortgage loans and that Defendant has not been returning communications seeking information

regarding the loans and requesting accountings. While Plaintiffs present evidence regarding the

merits of their action, they have not made any showing that they could not be compensated with

Case 3:07-cv-00120-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

monetary damages. The possibility of mere monetary damages are not enough to justify

imposition of a temporary restraining order. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v.

National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197,1202 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415

U.S. 61, 90 (1974)) (holding that mere monetary injury is insufficient to demonstrate irreparable

harm and the possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available

at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable

harm). 

Finally, Plaintiffs do not provide any explanation as to why they suddenly need

immediate relief now, when they knew as of mid-2006 that Defendant was in breach of the

agreements and was not being responsive to requests for audits or other information. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and request

for the appointment of a receiver. This order is without prejudice to filing a renewed motion

upon a proper showing of all relevant factors or filing a motion for preliminary injunction. 

Plaintiffs are directed to serve a copy of this Order on Defendant, or make a showing of good

cause why service should not be required, by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 18,

2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00120-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 3