Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00088/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00088-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SCOTT and BEVERLY CANDRIAN,

husband and wife, and SCOTT and

BEVERLY CANDRIAN on behalf of

RS INDUSTRIES, INC., an Iowa

Corporation,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

RS INDUSTRIES, INC., an Iowa

Corporation, PERRY HINTZE,

STANLEY HINTZE, TIM HINTZE,

JEFF HINTZE, TODD HINTZE, GREG

HESTER, and KEVIN CONKLIN,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 13-088-TUC-CKJ 

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 84) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction the Application for TRO and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 85). The parties

presented limited argument on October 1, 2013, and the Court took the matter under

advisement. In light of the detailed briefing and the Court’s history with this matter, the

Court finds it would not be assisted by any further argument. 

Procedural Background

On May 21, 2013, this Court denied the prior application for a preliminary injunction

sought by Plaintiffs Scott and Beverly Candrian (the “Candrians”). In denying the

application, the Court determined that there was some probability that the Candrians would

Case 4:13-cv-00088-CKJ Document 89 Filed 10/03/13 Page 1 of 5
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 Court having more extensively set forth the applicable law and facts of this case

in the prior injunction proceeding, the Court will not repeat those standards and facts.

- 2 -

be successful in their claims; however, the Court did not find that a significant showing has

been made. In considering whether irreparable harm had been shown, the Court stated:

The concerns the Court expressed in issuing the Temporary Restraining Order have

been alleviated by the testimony presented at the Preliminary Injunction hearing. The

testimony establishes that the companies will be able to continue to be bondable and

maintain a line of credit. Included within this consideration is that Candrian does not

object to a forensic audit of Sun. Further, Hintze has agreed that Candrian’s

employment will not be terminated prior to the expiration of the employment contract

and his testimony indicates that discussions for future consulting are ongoing.

Additionally, the parties agree that Kinseth will be Candrian’s successor. The

testimony establishes the strong financial health of RS and Sun and that all parties are

interested in the continuing success of the companies. 

The dispute between the parties is a contract dispute which may be remedied by

money damages. Economic damages are not traditionally considered irreparable

because the injury can later be remedied by a damage award. Cal. Pharmacists Ass'n

v. Maxwell Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir.2009), modified on other grounds, quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974).

Although there may be some likelihood of success by Candrian in this lawsuit, the

Court finds that no irreparable harm will result if a Preliminary Injunction is not

issued. Rather, any injuries related to the allegations in the Amended Complaint can

be remedied by a damages award. 

May 21, 2013, Order, Doc. 72, pp. 7-8.1

Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42) and the Candrians have filed

a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 78) and a Motion for Limited

Expedited Discovery (Doc. 79). These motions are contested by the opposing parties and are

pending a ruling by the Court.

On September 28, 2013, the Candrians filed a new Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 84); Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss for

Lack of Jurisdiction the Application for TRO and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 85). 

Standard for Injunctive Relief

To obtain injunctive relief, a moving party must show either "(a) probable success on

the merits combined with the possibility of irreparable injury or (b) that [it] has raised serious

questions going to the merits, and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in [its] favor."

Case 4:13-cv-00088-CKJ Document 89 Filed 10/03/13 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir.2003). The Ninth Circuit has

explained that "these two alternatives represent ‘extremes of a single continuum,' rather than

two separate tests. Thus, the greater the relative hardship to the moving party, the less

probability of success must be shown." Immigrant Assistant Project of Los Angeles County

Fed'n of Labor (AFLCIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir.2002), citation omitted.

Second Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

In considering the Candrians’ request for injunctive relief, the Court considers the

evidence previously presented to the Court and the new allegations submitted by the

Candrians. As the parties dispute the facts and events of what has transpired since the

Court’s last consideration of these issues, for the purposes of this Order, the Court will accept

the Candrians’ allegations. The Candrians assert Defendants have “seized control of Sun’s

IT system and access to corporate records, sued Sun’s IT manager, blocked by legal action

Candrian’s efforts to audit RS’s books and records, and hired a new accountant and paid it

over $1 million to conduct a forensic audit of Candrian and Sun in support of their litigation

efforts.” Application, Doc. 84, p. 4. The Candrians further assert Respondent Hintze has not

cooperated in efforts to maintain a workable status quo and has underhandedly and recklessly

attempt[ed] to wrest control of Sun from Candrian regardless of the inevitable collateral

damage to Sun and Sun’s employees. Id. at 5. The Candrians also allege that Defendant

Perry Hintze:

acting in his self-proclaimed role of RS President, issued an unprecedented and

illegal “consent resolution” summarily removing Beverly and Scott Candrian as Sun’s

directors and replacing them with Todd Hintze, Stanley Hintze, and Kevin Conklin.

[Footnote omitted.] In a second “consent resolution”, these new alleged “directors”

of Sun then purported to remove all of Sun’s existing officers, including Candrian and

Kinseth, and purported to install Conklin as Sun’s new President. The new

“directors,” acting pursuant to the apparent authority fo the foregoing sham

“resolutions”, also seized control of Sun’s bank accounts by removing Candrian and

all other authorized signers on those accounts. 

Id., at 6. The Candrians further assert Conklin subsequently arrived at Sun’s headquarters

to take over as Sun’s new president and Defendants’ attorneys initiated an action in state

court. 

Case 4:13-cv-00088-CKJ Document 89 Filed 10/03/13 Page 3 of 5
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 -

The Candrians argue that these and other actions clearly show that Defendants are

more interested in seizing control of Sun that in ensuring its continued success. Specifically,

the Candrians point to Conklin’s lack of familiarity and developed relationships with

Tucson’s business community. The Candrians argue Defendants have not shown they have

the ability to satisfy a substantial damages award and, even if they could, “[n]o amount of

money could compensate Candrian for being forced to surrender the company he founded

to the Hintzes months, if not years, before receiving a dime of the promised compensation.”

Id. at 11. 

Generally, economic damages are not traditionally considered irreparable because the

injury can later be remedied by a damage award. Cal. Pharmacists Ass'n v. Maxwell Jolly,

563 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir.2009), modified on other grounds, quoting Sampson v. Murray,

415 U.S. 61, 90, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974). Although the Candrians have argued

that the destruction of Sun warrants equitable relief, the facts as alleged by the Candrians do

not show that Defendants’ conduct is likely to destroy Sun. Rather, there is nothing to

establish that either the Candrians or Defendants have anything other than an interest in Sun

maintaining its success. Rather than the evidence showing that Defendants’ conduct may

negatively affect Sun’s success, the evidence and facts alleged show both the Candrians and

Defendants seek to pursue action each believe is in Sun’s best interests – the parties simply

disagree about the best way to ensure that success. The evidence shows that it is the

continued inability and/or unwillingness of the parties to work together that may negatively

affect Sun’s future success. 

The Candrians having failed to clearly show that irreparable harm warranting

equitable relief, rather than economic damages, is possible, the Court finds it appropriate to

deny the requested injunctive relief. To the extent Defendants seek dismissal of the

requested injunctive relief because economic loss is not a basis for injunctive relief, the Court

will grant the Motion to Dismiss the Application for TRO and Preliminary Injunction.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Case 4:13-cv-00088-CKJ Document 89 Filed 10/03/13 Page 4 of 5
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 -

Injunction (Doc. 84) is DENIED.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the Application for

TRO and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 85) is GRANTED.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2013.

Case 4:13-cv-00088-CKJ Document 89 Filed 10/03/13 Page 5 of 5