Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02960/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02960-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sione Pauu
Defendant
UNUM Life Insurance Company of America
Plaintiff

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SIONE PAUU, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-02960-YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 32 

Plaintiff Unum Life Insurance Company of America (“Unum”) has filed an ex parte 

motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 32) seeking an 

order to enjoin Defendant Sione Pauu (“Pauu”) from dissipating alleged overpaid assets which are 

at stake in this litigation. The motion was filed, and notice given, on January 21, 2015. No 

opposition has yet been filed. 

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the complaint in this action, and for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. 

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that 

govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,

434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 

F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). Preliminary injunctive relief, whether in the form of a 

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy,” 

that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-690 (2008) (internal 

citations omitted). In order to obtain such relief, a plaintiff must establish four factors: (1) he is 

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 

interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

Case 4:14-cv-02960-YGR Document 34 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

a

Unum has not submitted evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of success on the 

merits of any claim. The claims herein are for conversion, unjust enrichment, quasi-contract, and 

declaratory relief. The only documents submitted in connection with the motion are a copy of the 

unverified complaint and its attachments, which are do not constitute admissible evidence. 

Coverdell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., State of Wash., 834 F.2d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(unsworn factual allegations in briefing and unverified complaint insufficient to oppose motion for 

summary judgment). Thus Unum’s showing on this factor is inadequate. 

As to irreparable injury, Unum has not established entitlement to the extraordinary remedy 

of an asset freeze or that a damages remedy would be insufficient under the circumstances. 

“While a court generally has the power to preserve the status quo by equitable means [and] [a] 

preliminary injunction is such a means...the equitable power to freeze assets does not exist in all 

cases: it exists only as ancillary relief necessary to accomplish complete justice.” Reebok Int'l, 

Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). The argument that a defendant might not have sufficient funds to pay a 

money judgment is not, standing alone, sufficient reason to grant an asset freeze. 

Similarly, there is no showing on the factors of balance of equities or the public interest 

affected. As a consequence, the motion must be and is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 26, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-02960-YGR Document 34 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 2