Opinion ID: 2981863
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factor One - Likelihood of Success

Text: This factor weighs in favor of granting the motion if the plaintiff “shows more than a mere possibility of success” and, instead, “raise[s] questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation.” Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 402 (6th Cir. 1997). However, “a party is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing” as the evidence “is less complete than a trial on the merits.” Certified Restoration, 511 F.3d at 542 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 855 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction where it relied primarily on the three non-likelihood factors). Athena urges, in vain, that we consider in isolation its acquisition of the SunTrust Bank notes because Plaintiff has not proven that the facially-valid deed of trust was illegitimate. However, the validity of the transfers cannot be considered in a vacuum. On less than complete evidence, Plaintiff need only proffer sufficient evidence to raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the transfer to Athena. See Certified Restoration, 511 F.3d at 542; Six Clinics, 119 F.3d at 402. We find that Plaintiff met his burden. Plaintiff’s uncontested proof established that Doukas, sole owner of Athena, was Ross’s associate who once shared office space with him; and that Doukas acquired personally and through his entities millions of dollars’ worth of assets from several of the Ross Defendants shortly after the magistrate judge in the underlying RICO action recommended entry of default judgment. At least one of those transfers, for property owned by another Ross Defendant, 19 Nos. 12-5739/12-6042/12-6230 appeared to be without consideration because payment for the properties were to be made by another Doukas entity, American Harper Corp., to Athena. And the record demonstrated that, shortly before the SunTrust note transfers, Tennessee Land entered a cooperation agreement with two of the Ross Defendants, in which it agreed to transfer to Athena its security interest in other properties owned by the Ross Defendants for no monetary consideration. Thus, while not conclusively disproving Athena’s claim that its acquisition of the SunTrust notes was above board, this evidence, albeit circumstantial, raises a strong inference that Tennessee Land and Athena collaborated with Defendant Ross and several of the defendant entities to transfer assets to Doukas, through Athena and his other entities.3 Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting the preliminary injunction.4