Takiguchi v. MRI International, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Junzo Suzuki and Paul Musashi Suzuki appeal from the district court’s preliminary injunction freezing all of their assets. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 , and we review the district court’s preliminary injunction order for abuse of discretion. Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563, 570 (9th Cir.2014).

The Suzukis argue that the preliminary injunction is overbroad because it imposes a constructive trust for the benefit of a proposed class that has not been certified. “[I]n the absence of class certification, the preliminary injunction may properly cover only the named plaintiffs.” Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir.1984). However, a preliminary injunction may incidentally benefit putative class members prior to class certification, so long as the breadth of the injunction is necessary to give the named plaintiffs the relief to which they would be entitled if they prevail. See Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1501-02 (9th Cir.1996).

It is unclear whether the district court properly tailored the preliminary injunction to preserve assets for the benefit of the 25 named plaintiffs. Certain statements in…