Opinion ID: 569889
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Scope of the Preliminary Injunctions

Text: 14 Finally, Leif and Evelyn contend the district court exceeded its authority in issuing the preliminary injunctions and appointing a receiver. We disagree. 15 A district court has broad powers and wide discretion to frame the scope of appropriate equitable relief. Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. United Fin. Group, 474 F.2d 354, 358-59 (9th Cir.1973). Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a district court's exercise of its discretion. Id.; Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 993 (1988). 16 Leif and Evelyn have failed to present evidence that the district court abused its discretion. The district court appointed the receiver to manage the Soderlings' assets. The preliminary injunctions place a limit on the amount of money Leif and Jay Soderling may spend without prior court approval and restrict the amount of money Evelyn may receive from Leif or Jay. The injunctions also require Leif and Evelyn to account for their expenditures and income. 17 Ample evidence supports the district court's issuance of the injunction and order for the appointment of a receiver. The FDIC presented evidence that Leif and Jay had disposed of assets in excess of $3 million in violation of their criminal sentencing orders, and that Evelyn had disposed of further assets in violation of the TRO. The evidence also established that the Soderlings had created sham corporations to dispose of assets which otherwise would have been available for satisfaction of the criminal restitution judgment. 18 We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunctions and ordering the appointment of a receiver. 19 AFFIRMED.