Williams v. Doherty
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff David Williams moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant Andrea Nicole Doherty from disposing of a consigned Porsche or the proceeds from its sale. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm because the alleged injury was purely economic and compensable in damages.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction“Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show there is a likelihood of irreparable injury, it DENIES Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction [DKt. 5].” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for injunctive relief, which requires a showing of irreparable harm. The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's claim for the return of a specific vehicle or its sale proceeds, in the context of a breach of contract, generally constitutes a purely economic injury. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, purely economic harms are not considered irreparable because they can be compensated with money damages after a final judgment. Therefore, the denial follows logically from the cited authorities and the nature of the plaintiff's claims. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the dispositive factor (irreparable harm) and applies binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent to conclude that the plaintiff's breach of contract claim for the return of property or proceeds does not meet the threshold for injunctive relief. The reasoning directly addresses the plaintiff's argument that he would be deprived of his Porsche or funds, correctly characterizing this as an economic harm compensable in damages.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WILLIAMS, Case No.: 23-CV-2179-JO-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY 14 ANDREA NICOLE DOHERTY dba INJUNCTION CALIFORNIA PORSCHE 15 RESTORATION, DOES 1 through 20, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff David Williams filed a breach of contract lawsuit 20 against Defendant Andrea Nicole Doherty, doing business as California Porsche 21 Restoration, alleging that Defendant failed to market and sell Plaintiff’s Porsche and failed 22 to return the Porsche to Plaintiff pursuant to a 2021 consignment agreement. Dkt. 1. On 23 January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, 24 requesting the Court (1) enjoin Defendant from transferring, utilizing, spending, 25 withdrawing, removing, assigning, pledging, disbursing, or disposing of Plaintiff’s Porsche 26 and/or the funds that may have been received for its sale, and (2) order Defendant to return 27 to Plaintiff the Porsche or funds from its sale. Dkt. 5 (“Mot.”). 28 /// 1 The Court held oral argument on March 13, 2023. For the reasons stated on the 2 ||record at the oral argument, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief on 3 ||the grounds that Plaintiff has neither demonstrated he “faces a real or immediate threat” 4 he will suffer irreparable harm, Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 5 (2008); Midgett v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 254 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2001), 6 ||nor has he shown his damages would stem beyond purely compensatory damages 7 stemming from “payment of money past due under a contract, or specific performance of 8 ||a past-due monetary obligation,” which “is not typically available in equity.” Great-West 9 || Life & Ann. Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 US 204, 210 (2002). Plaintiff’s claims that he will 10 || be “deprived of his Porsche and/or funds from the sale of the Porsche,” Mot. at 8—9, unless 11 ||Defendant is immediately enjoined do not sufficiently demonstrate irreparable harm 12 || because “[p]urely economic harms are generally not irreparable, as money lost may be 13 ||/recovered later, in the ordinary course of litigation.” Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 794 14 || F3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015). 15 Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show there is a likelihood of 16 |/irreparable injury, it DENIES Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and 17 || preliminary injunction [DKt. 5]. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: March 19, 2024 20 21 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28