Wilson v. Horizon Actuarial Services

Background

Carlos Dario Wilson, representing himself, sued Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC; Unite Here, Local 2; Mike Casey; and Anand Singh. Wilson alleged that he was formerly employed by the Union, that the Union contracted with Horizon to provide services to Union employees, and that Horizon experienced a data breach. He alleged that the breach enabled violent stalking, cyberstalking, witness intimidation, obstruction, harassment, rape, torture, and human trafficking by third parties whom he believed were connected to former Union leader Mike Casey. He also alleged attempts to steal his identity and defraud him and his family of financial accounts and estates.

The opinion notes that a class action concerning the data breach settled, but Wilson opted out of that settlement. The opinion also notes that Wilson filed a separate lawsuit, but it does not provide that lawsuit’s outcome in the portion supplied.

Motion and legal standard

Wilson filed a motion for an emergency injunction and a claim to victim’s rights. He asked the court to prevent further harassment and intimidation, stop the dissipation of funds belonging to him or family members, declare that he had certain rights as a victim, and order the return of his Americans with Disabilities Act service animals.

The court liberally construed the motion as seeking a temporary restraining order, an emergency order that can temporarily restrict conduct. For an order issued without notifying the opposing parties, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing parties can be heard, along with a written certification concerning notice efforts and why notice should not be required.

Court’s reasoning

The court first denied relief because there was no indication that Wilson had notified any defendant about the motion. Wilson also did not explain why an order without notice should issue.

The court further stated that, even without that procedural problem, it was unclear whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. The complaint appeared to allege only state-law causes of action. The court said diversity jurisdiction was lacking because Wilson and Horizon appeared to be citizens of California. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.

The court added that, even if Wilson had pleaded a federal cause of action, his allegations that the defendants conspired to intimidate him, engage in human trafficking, or otherwise violate his rights were speculative. The court said he supplied no evidence and no nonconclusory allegations supporting those assertions. As a result, Wilson had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits, so a temporary restraining order was not proper.

Disposition

The court denied Wilson’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 9. It did not decide the underlying claims in Wilson’s lawsuit.