Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05399/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05399-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHUTING KANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOPHIE HARRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-05399-JD 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 60

This order arises out of plaintiff Kang’s efforts to enforce a settlement agreement with 

defendants. Dkt. No. 1. The settlement was reached in proceedings before a magistrate judge. An 

appeal to the Ninth Circuit in that case is pending for issues that are not germane to this order. See 

Kang v. Harrison, No. 17-cv-03034-DMR (N.D. Cal.). This case alleges breach of contract based 

on defendants’ failure to comply with the terms of the settlement. The Court finds that Kang has 

at a minimum raised a serious question about defendants’ breach of the settlement agreement, and 

that a short-term injunction of 30 days is warranted to maintain the status quo so that Kang can 

secure property attachments in aid of her complaint. 

The facts leading to this order are straightforward. In May 2019, Kang filed an application 

for a writ of attachment for certain real estate holdings to secure recovery of her claim. Dkt. No. 

34. The Court took argument on June 6, 2019, and granted the request. Dkt. Nos. 44, 53. On July 

30, 2019, Kang filed an ex parte application for a “temporary protective order” and other relief. 

Dkt. No. 60. Kang proffered a detailed statement indicating that defendants and their lawyers had 

purposefully encumbered assets in an effort to nullify the attachment relief, both after they learned 

of plaintiff’s initial attachment application and again after the June 6, 2019 hearing before the 

Court. Id. at 1-3; Dkt. No. 60-1 ¶¶ 6-9. Kang established that in the absence of immediate relief 

Case 3:18-cv-05399-JD Document 72 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to maintain the status quo, irreparable harm will result in the form of Defendants further 

encumbering the assets. Dkt. No. 60 at 15. 

The governing standards are well-established. Preliminary injunctions are “an 

extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 

7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he [or she] is likely 

to succeed on the merits, that he [or she] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his [or her] favor, and that an injunction is in 

the public interest.” Id. at 20; see also Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(same). In our circuit, a plaintiff may also obtain a preliminary injunction under a “sliding scale” 

approach by raising “serious questions” going to the merits of plaintiff’s claims and showing that 

the balance of hardships tips “sharply” in his or her favor. A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Res. 

Clinic v. Becerra, 901 F.3d 1166, 1167 (9th Cir. 2018); Vanguard Outdoor, LLC v. City of L.A.,

648 F.3d 737, 739-40 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Under either inquiry, Kang is entitled to preliminary relief. The facts adduced by Kang 

indicate that defendants and their counsel have sought to evade the writs the Court authorized in 

the prior proceedings. While the Court does not make a final determination here, the weight of 

these questions is more than enough to establish a likelihood of success on the claim that 

defendants have engaged in evasive conduct intended to frustrate the Court’s orders and Kang’s 

rights to attachment. At a minimum, the facts also establish a serious question about defendants’ 

failure to adhere to the terms of the settlement they signed. Kang has also demonstrated 

irreparable harm from defendants’ wasting of the value of the assets to which she has some claim. 

Failure to provide preliminary relief makes it likely that Kang would receive no relief at all. For 

similar reasons, the balance of equities tips sharply in Kang’s favor, and a preliminary injunction 

serves the public interest of enforcing settlement agreements and the integrity of judicial orders 

and proceedings. 

Consequently, the Court enters the following preliminary injunction:

Defendants, their attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants and 

employees, and persons in active concert or participation with defendants who have actual notice 

Case 3:18-cv-05399-JD Document 72 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of this order (collectively, the “Enjoined Parties”), are enjoined for 30 days from the date of the 

August 1, 2019 hearing, until August 31, 2019, from encumbering in any way the properties 

subject to this Court’s attachment orders, Dkt. Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67. The covered properties are: 

35 Bel Aire Court, Hillsborough, CA 94010; 1475 Huntington Avenue #301, South San Francisco, 

CA 94080; and 24031 Lama Road, Mi Wuk Village, CA 95346. Defendants may ask the Court to 

allow a specific encumbrance by applying in advance for permission and for good cause shown. 

Kang may ask to extend the term of the injunction for good cause to allow for the completion of 

the attachment process. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) generally requires a movant to deposit a security 

before a preliminary injunction issues. The Court has “discretion as to the amount of security 

required, if any.” Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999). The likelihood 

of plaintiff’s success on the merits “tips in favor of a minimal bond or no bond at all.” Cal. ex rel. 

Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1326 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Additionally, given that the injunction provides a means for defendants to impose encumbrances 

as necessary, the Court “may dispense with the filing of a bond [since] it concludes there is no 

realistic likelihood of harm to defendant from enjoining his or her conduct.” Jorgensen v. 

Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05399-JD Document 72 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 3