Isozaki v. Resolute Capital Partners LTD
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-00091
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Isozaki v. Resolute Capital Partners, Judge Rogers denied a temporary restraining order but granted expedited consideration of a preliminary-injunction motion.
Donald Isozaki and the defendants identified by the court as the RCP Parties.
What happened
In Isozaki v. Resolute Capital Partners LTD, Donald Isozaki asked the court to stop the defendants from transferring $600,000 except to return his retirement savings to him.
The court denied Isozaki’s request for a temporary restraining order because he had not shown that money damages would be inadequate or that he would suffer irreparable harm. He also had not provided evidence showing that the defendants received proper notice of the request.
Judge Yvonne Rogers granted Isozaki’s request to have the preliminary-injunction motion heard on a shortened schedule. The court set deadlines for additional filings and scheduled a January 26, 2021 hearing by videoconference.
The detailed version
- Isozaki v. Resolute Capital Partners LTD · No. 4:21-cv-00091
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 8, 2021
Background
Donald Isozaki filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order and asked the court to set a hearing on a preliminary injunction. He sought to restrain Resolute Capital Partners LTD., LLC, Resolute Capital Managers, LLC, Legacy Energy, LLC, PetroRock Mineral Holdings, LLC, HomeBound Resources, LLC, HomeBound, Inc., Home Bound Financial Group, LP, Mercury Operating, LLC, Stefan Toth, Ted Etheredge, Pablo Cortez, and Thomas Powell, collectively called the “RCP Parties,” from transferring, removing, or otherwise disposing of $600,000, except to return Isozaki’s retirement savings to his possession and control.
Temporary Restraining Order
The court denied Isozaki’s application for a temporary restraining order. The court found that he had not established irreparable harm or that legal remedies, such as money damages, were inadequate. It explained that injunctive relief is generally unavailable to compel payment of money owed under a contract or to enforce a past-due monetary obligation, and Isozaki had not shown why his claims fell within an exception.
The court also found that Isozaki had not shown why emergency relief should be granted without the usual notice to the opposing parties. Although the motion stated that papers had been served and sent by email, the court said that statement lacked supporting evidence or certification required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
Preliminary-Injunction Schedule
The court construed Isozaki’s request for an order to show cause as a request to hear his preliminary-injunction motion on shortened time and granted that request. Isozaki was ordered to file and serve additional supporting briefing or evidence by January 11, 2021, together with proof of service of the summons, complaint, and order. Opposition was due January 18, and any reply was due January 20. Judge Yvonne Rogers scheduled the preliminary-injunction hearing for January 26, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. by the court’s videoconference platform. The order terminated Docket No. 6.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.