Priority Acquisitions LLC v. Medallion Gold Inc.

Background

Priority Acquisitions LLC sought a temporary restraining order, or TRO, to obtain immediate relief before a hearing on a preliminary injunction. The request concerned property on which a Notice of Default had been recorded on September 12, 2023, and a Notice of Trustee’s Sale had been recorded on February 27, 2024. Priority Acquisitions filed the case on March 22, 2024, filed its TRO application on March 25, and gave the defendants notice of its intent to seek the TRO only slightly more than 24 hours before the scheduled sale.

Legal standard

The court explained that the standard for a TRO and a preliminary injunction is substantially the same. The party seeking relief must make a threshold showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors it, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. A TRO is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of entitlement. Under the Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale approach, serious questions on the merits may be enough only if the hardship balance sharply favors the requesting party and the other required showings are also made.

Court’s analysis

The court found Priority Acquisitions’ timing unreasonable and unfair to the defendants. Priority Acquisitions offered no explanation for waiting until the last moment to seek relief, even though the relevant notices had been recorded earlier. The court concluded that the claimed emergency had been created by the timing of the application rather than presented as a compelling emergency.

The court also found that the balance of the hardships did not favor issuing a TRO. The application did not claim that anyone lived at the property or faced eviction. The court stated that the claims, if successful, could be remedied through money damages and therefore did not involve the immediate loss of a residence that can support a finding of possible irreparable harm.

The opinion noted an inconsistency in the supporting declaration: it stated that Priority Acquisitions was the owner, but also stated that Mr. Musson purchased the property. The court did not resolve that inconsistency.

Disposition

Because Priority Acquisitions had not made a clear showing that it was entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, the court denied the application for a temporary restraining order. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims were resolved.