Nobles v. Kern
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-07362
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Nobles v. Kern, Judge Freeman denied without prejudice a preliminary-injunction motion because a separate attachment order provided Nobles’s needed protections.
Kathleen Nobles’s request for preliminary relief was denied without prejudice; Fred M. Kern and Plum Holdings LLC were the defendants whose property was the subject of the requested attachment order.
What happened
In Nobles v. Kern, Kathleen Nobles asked the court for an order allowing her to attach property belonging to Fred M. Kern and Plum Holdings LLC, as well as a preliminary injunction. The court separately granted the attachment request.
For a preliminary injunction, Nobles had to show likely success, likely irreparable harm, favorable balancing of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court found no likelihood of irreparable harm because the attachment order would provide the protections Nobles sought.
The court denied the preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice, meaning the ruling did not bar a later request. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on March 6, 2020.
The detailed version
- Nobles v. Kern · No. 5:19-cv-07362
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
Kathleen Nobles applied for a right to attach order against property belonging to Fred M. Kern and Plum Holdings LLC, identified in the opinion as a Nevada limited liability company. She also sought a preliminary injunction. The court separately memorialized its grant of the right to attach order.
Legal standard
The court applied the four-part standard for a preliminary injunction: the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without preliminary relief, that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also noted the Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale approach, under which serious questions on the merits may be enough if the balance of hardships tips sharply toward the plaintiff. The opinion stated that likelihood of irreparable harm and the public-interest requirement must still be satisfied.
Reasoning and ruling
The court concluded that Nobles could not show a likelihood of irreparable harm at that time. In light of the right to attach order, and based on Nobles’s counsel’s agreement at the March 6, 2020 hearing, the court found that the attachment order would provide the protections Nobles sought. A preliminary injunction was therefore unnecessary.
The court denied without prejudice Nobles’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not address the merits of the underlying dispute. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.