Kevin B. Williams v. Transworld Systems Inc., et al.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-09527
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Williams v. Transworld, Judge Gilliam denied a temporary restraining order because Williams did not show likely irreparable harm.
Kevin B. Williams's request for emergency relief was denied, so Transworld was not restrained by this order. The case continued subject to Williams filing an amended complaint and properly serving the defendants.
What happened
In Kevin B. Williams v. Transworld Systems Inc., et al., Kevin B. Williams, representing himself, asked the court to stop Transworld from collecting a disputed medical bill, reporting information about it, or selling or assigning the account. He alleged claims involving financial elder abuse, debt collection, unfair competition, and credit reporting, and appeared to assert some claims against the Regents of the University of California.
The court said Williams had not shown that he was likely to suffer harm that could not later be addressed with money or other relief. The court treated the alleged effects on his credit, finances, reputation, and access to housing or borrowing as insufficient, including because some of his assertions were general and unsupported. Because he failed to make the required showing of likely irreparable harm, the court did not decide whether he was likely to win his claims or address the other requirements for emergency relief.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the temporary restraining order application. The court also ordered Williams to file, within 21 days, one amended complaint that properly states the facts and claims against both defendants, and reminded him that he must formally serve the defendants.
The detailed version
- Kevin B. Williams v. Transworld Systems Inc., et al. · No. 4:25-cv-09527
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
Kevin B. Williams, who was representing himself, moved for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. He alleged that Transworld Systems Inc. was unlawfully trying to collect disputed charges from a medical procedure at UCSF and was threatening to report inaccurate credit information.
The complaint asserted claims for financial elder abuse, violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Williams also appeared to assert some or all of those claims against the Regents of the University of California. The court noted that a filing titled “First Amended Complaint” did not contain factual allegations or causes of action; instead, it appeared to seek to add the Regents to the original complaint.
Williams asked the court to prevent Transworld from collecting or attempting to collect the UCSF account, furnishing or continuing to furnish information about the account, and selling or assigning the account.
Temporary Restraining Order Standard
A temporary restraining order is emergency relief that may temporarily prohibit conduct while the court considers a preliminary injunction. The court explained that Williams normally had to show four things: a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of hardships favored him, and that the order would serve the public interest. Under the Ninth Circuit's sliding-scale approach, sufficiently serious questions about the merits may sometimes be enough if the other requirements are met, including likely irreparable injury and service of the public interest.
Court's Analysis
Williams argued that negative credit reporting and collection activity could harm his credit, housing opportunities, access to essential services, finances, goodwill, reputation, and control, and that those harms could not adequately be compensated with money.
The court rejected that showing. It explained that economic injury generally does not establish irreparable harm because a later damages award can remedy it. Although the court acknowledged the financial effects that negative credit reporting can have, it concluded that Williams's allegations about credit, finances, reputation, and related harms were not enough. In particular, the court described his assertions about reputational effects as conclusory.
Because Williams failed to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm, the court did not reach the other temporary-restraining-order factors, including whether he was likely to succeed on the merits.
Disposition and Additional Orders
The court DENIED Williams's temporary restraining order application. It also ORDERED Williams to file an amended complaint within 21 days that properly describes the factual allegations and causes of action against both defendants in a single complaint. The court advised him that he could seek assistance from the Legal Help Center. It further noted that he still had to formally serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and that failure to do so within 90 days after filing the complaint could result in dismissal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.