United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY United States Magistrate Judge
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.
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
also requests that the Court appoint a temporary receiver in
. . . 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
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.
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.
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 ...