Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 24, 2020

CCSAC, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corp

Judge
James Donato
Docket
3:20-cv-02102
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Preliminary InjunctionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In CCSAC v. Pacific Banking, Judge Donato granted a preliminary injunction protecting plaintiffs’ deposited funds and related records.

Who this affects

CCSAC, Inc., CANN Distributors, Inc., Pacific Banking Corp., Justin Costello, GRN Funds, LLC, and persons acting with the defendants. The injunction protects the plaintiffs’ deposited funds and deposit records and restricts the defendants’ conduct after notice.

What happened

CCSAC, Inc. and CANN Distributors, Inc. asked the court to replace an earlier temporary restraining order with a preliminary injunction against Pacific Banking Corp., Justin Costello, and GRN Funds, LLC. The defendants did not appear or oppose the request, although the plaintiffs showed reasonable efforts to notify them.

The injunction prohibits the defendants, after receiving actual notice, from using, transferring, or reducing the plaintiffs’ deposited funds without express consent. It also prohibits them from deleting, destroying, editing, or altering records concerning those deposits, including transaction and balance records.

The court granted the preliminary injunction on the same terms as the earlier order, solely to preserve the situation while the case continues. Judge James Donato ruled that the plaintiffs did not need to post a bond and directed them to try additional methods of serving the order on the defendants.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
CCSAC, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corp · No. 3:20-cv-02102
Judge
James Donato
Date
Apr. 24, 2020

Background

The court had previously issued an emergency temporary restraining order for CCSAC, Inc. and CANN Distributors, Inc. against Pacific Banking Corp. (referred to as “PBC”), Justin Costello, and GRN Funds, LLC. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction as directed by that earlier order. The court found that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to serve the defendants, including what appeared to be successful email service on some of them. No defendant appeared or opposed the motion.

Ruling

The court granted the preliminary injunction on exactly the same terms as the temporary restraining order. The court stated that the injunction was intended solely to preserve the status quo while the case was pending.

After receiving actual notice of the order through personal service or another method, the defendants and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and people acting together with them were prohibited from:

1. Using, drawing down, transferring, or otherwise reducing funds deposited with PBC by CCSAC, Inc. or CANN Distributors, Inc. without the plaintiffs’ express consent; and 2. Deleting, destroying, editing, or otherwise altering records related to the plaintiffs’ deposits, including transaction and deposit-balance records.

Bond and Service

The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not need to post a bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), given the nature of the case and the relief ordered. The plaintiffs were directed to attempt personal and corporate service, as well as email service, at all known addresses for the defendants. The defendants may seek reconsideration of the injunction for good cause if and when they appear in the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.