Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03102/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03102-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. Habib
Defendant
James P. McKenna
Defendant
Virginia C. Moon
Counter Defendant
David H. Rush
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

VIRGINIA C. MOON, on her own 

behalf and on behalf of the 

Peters, Rush, Habib & McKenna 

Profit Sharing Plan,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID H. RUSH, MARK A. HABIB, 

and JAMES P. MCKENNA,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-3102-GEB-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Virginia Moon seeks a 

temporary restraining order (“TRO”) under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 65(b) barring Defendant and Counterclaimant 

David Rush from filing a partition lawsuit in state court 

concerning the real property at 1525 Dayton Road in Chico, 

California (“the Property”). Rush opposes the motion (ECF No. 

139.) Rush, Moon and the Plan are co-owners of the Property. (ECF 

No. 131.) 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

To obtain a TRO, a party must demonstrate that “[s]he 

is likely to succeed on the merits, that [s]he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 

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

Case 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD Document 144 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 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

2

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

Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “[I]f a plaintiff can only show 

that there are „serious questions going to the merits‟—a lesser 

showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a [TRO]...

may still issue if the „balance of the hardships tips sharply in 

the plaintiff‟s favor,‟ and the other two Winter factors are 

satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 

1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies 

v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). “The [Winter] 

test is conjunctive, meaning that the party seeking the [TRO]...

must satisfy each element.” Wells Fargo Bank v. SFR Inv. Pool 1, 

LLC, No. 2:13-CV-1375 JCM (PAL), 2013 WL 6231373, at *2 (D. Nev. 

Dec. 2, 2013.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits/Serious Questions 

Going to the Merits

Moon argues she is entitled to a TRO since she alleges 

in her Complaint, in pertinent part, that Rush violated his 

fiduciary duties to the Plan “[b]y placing himself in a 

conflicted position with respect to the Plan [Property by], 

engaging in prohibited transactions, . . . [such as] taking for 

himself rents and tax benefits attributable to the Dayton Road 

property owed to the Plan and/or Ms. Moon.” (Compl. ¶ 91, ECF No. 

2.) Moon argues she is a beneficiary of the Plan, and since Rush 

was a Plan fiduciary, and simultaneously part owner of the 

Property in his individual capacity, he failed to perform the

fiduciary obligations he owed the Plan and therefore Moon is 

likely to prevail on her equitable claim for an order “equitably 

Case 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD Document 144 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 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

3

restor[ing] the Dayton Road property to [her].” (Compl. Prayer 

for Relief As to the Seventh Claims for Relief, ECF No. 2.) Moon 

argues that if Rush files a partition lawsuit in state court, she 

would be deprived of this equitable relief. 

Rush counters that even if Moon could show a likelihood 

of success on this breach of fiduciary duty claim, it is not 

likely that she would receive an order equitably restoring his 

interest in the Property to her since he and Moon have had 

agreements that clearly would not favor such equitable relief.

“Serious questions” in the context of a TRO are those 

that are so “substantial, difficult, and doubtful, as to make 

them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberative 

investigation.” Republic of Philippines v. Marcos, 826 F.2d 1355, 

1362 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). 

In light of the agreements and disagreements Moon and 

Rush have had concerning the Property, Moon has not raised 

serious questions that she is likely to prevail on her equitable 

restoration claim as she contends.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Moon‟s motion for a temporary 

restraining order is DENIED. 

Dated: January 21, 2015

Case 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD Document 144 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 3