Opinion ID: 2981863
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factors Two and Three - Balancing the Harms

Text: The district court found that Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm because Plaintiff would not be able to enforce the RICO judgment against Defendants LTR and TLP if Athena was permitted to foreclose on the Rarity Bay condominiums and lots encumbered by the SunTrust notes. The district court did not clearly err in this determination since courts have the inherent authority to 3 The Receiver later confirmed the district court’s suspicions, finding that Tennessee Land served as a “surrogate” purchaser of the SunTrust notes for Athena because Athena financed Tennessee Land’s purchase of the SunTrust notes and Defendant Ross benefitted because the deal permitted him to continue running the Rarity Bay development. 4 Additionally, in light of the above analysis, the district court properly concluded that the evidence demonstrated that Athena probably acted in concert with the Ross Defendants so as to bind Athena to its ruling under Rule 65(d)(2). See Blackard v. Memphis Area Med. Ctr. for Women, Inc., 262 F.3d 568, 574 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[A] decree of injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them in interest[ or] in ‘privity’ with them.”) (quoting Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945)). 20 Nos. 12-5739/12-6042/12-6230 preserve property that may be the subject of a final decree. See USACO Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc., 689 F.2d 94, 98 (6th Cir. 1982). Moreover, assuming the transfer to Athena was valid, the risks of delay in the foreclosure proceedings were adequately covered by the bond the district court ordered Plaintiff to pay. There was no harm to Athena’s interest that was not adequately protected by the bond, whereas Plaintiff’s interest in recovering from LTR and TLP would have been largely unprotected absent an injunction. Accordingly, we find that the district court properly weighed these factors in Plaintiff’s favor.