Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Balboa v. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

December 1, 2016

CAREY JAMES BALBOA, Plaintiff,
v.
BELL ATLANTIC MOBILE SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants.

          Sharp Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court upon the pro se Plaintiff's “Motion for Temporary Injunction with Asset Freeze, Appointment of Temporary Receiver.” Docket No. 6. Defendant Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC (“Pinnacle”) has filed a Response in Opposition. Docket No. 13.

         In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a temporary injunction against Defendant Pinnacle. Docket No. 6, p. 1. Specifically, Plaintiff “requests the court freeze Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC's accounts and assets globally and restrict defendant from withdrawing or moving assets to avoid payment upon the court's decision.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff asks that he not be required to post a bond for the issuance of this injunction, because “for the last 2 years the defendants actions prevented plaintiff from owing [sic] any real world assets.” Id.

         Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint a temporary receiver in order to:

. . . obviate the threat of destruction of business records, the liquidation of assets, and other non-compliance with any temporary injunction issued, whose costs and expenses are to be borne by the Defendant. Plaintiff also moves that any temporary receiver appointed have the ability to locate any and all assets the Defendants and their “doing business as; i.e. DBA's” aliases used in the course of the business.

Id.

         As a basis for his Motion, Plaintiff states:

As grounds for the Plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction, given the defendants long documented history of fraudulent business practices and no less than 462 publicly documented BBB consumer complains [sic] in the last 3 years.

Id. at 1.

         Defendant Pinnacle responds that Plaintiff has not met the burden necessary to the issuance of a preliminary injunction, which involves consideration of four factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Docket No. 13, p. 1, citing In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1227-28 (6th Cir. 1985) and Certified Restoration DryCleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir. 2007). Pinnacle contends that Plaintiff ignores these four factors, and also “cites no authority by which he seeks the appointment of a receiver, nor a basis for obtaining such relief prejudgment with a disputed claim.” Id. at 1-2.

         The Sixth Circuit has established the factors that must be considered by the District Court in determining whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Mason County Medical Ass'n v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1977). Those factors are:

1) Whether the plaintiffs have shown a strong or substantial likelihood or probability of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.