Oh
Oh v. Sunvalleytek International, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID OH, Case No. 22-cv-00866-VC
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S v. RENEWED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY ASSET-FREEZING
SUNVALLEYTEK INTERNATIONAL, INJUNCTION
INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 92 Defendants.
Oh’s renewed motion for a preliminary asset-freezing injunction is denied. Even assuming authority to freeze assets in these circumstances and that Oh has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, Oh has not met his burden for a preliminary injunction. This ruling assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties.1 1. Oh has requested a freeze on the approximately $4.75 million worth of assets tied up in Sunvalleytek’s arbitration with Amazon, as well as a freeze on all other Sunvalleytek assets until sixty days after an accounting is completed. But Oh has not shown that the class is likely to receive $4.75 million—or any specific amount—in restitution. Based on a “conservative estimate” that Sunvalleytek would owe the class 20% of its California revenue, Oh says the class would…