FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

JAN 09 2017

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI No. 15-16654

INDIANS; PASKENTA ENTERPRISES

CORPORATION, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-

CMK

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

INES CROSBY; JOHN CROSBY;

LESLIE LOHSE; LARRY LOHSE; TED

PATA; JUAN PATA; CHRIS PATA;

SHERRY MYERS; FRANK JAMES;

UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA

HOLDINGS CORPORATION;

CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANK;

CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY

BANCORP; JEFFERY FINCK; GARTH

MOORE; GARTH MOORE

INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL

SERVICES, INC.; ASSOCIATED

PENSION CONSULTANTS, INC.;

HANESS & ASSOCIATES, LLC;

ROBERT M. HANESS; THE PATRIOT

GOLD & SILVER EXCHANGE, INC.;

NORMAN R. RYAN; QUICKEN

LOANS, INC., Nominal Defendant; CRP 111 WEST 141ST LLC, Nominal Defendant; CASTELLAN MANAGING

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. MEMBER LLC, Nominal Defendant; CRP WEST 168TH STREET LLC, Nominal Defendant; CRP SHERMAN AVENUE LLC, Nominal Defendant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 18, 2016 San Francisco, California

Before: KLEINFELD, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellants Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians and Paskenta

Enterprises Corporation (collectively the Tribe) appeal from the district court’s

denial of a motion for preliminary injunction to freeze the assets of Defendant-

Appellees Ines Crosby, John Crosby, Leslie Lohse, and Larry Lohse (collectively

Defendants). The Tribe contends that the district court abused its discretion by

applying an incorrect legal standard that required a heightened evidentiary

showing. Alternatively, the Tribe argues that the district court made clearly

erroneous factual findings.

2 1. The district court had jurisdiction over this case. See 28 U.S.C. §

1362 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions,

brought by any Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the

Secretary of the Interior, wherein the matter in controversy arises under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

2. We review a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction for

abuse of discretion. See Cascadia Wildlands v. Thrailkill, 806 F.3d 1234, 1240

(9th Cir. 2015). However, to enable meaningful appellate review, a district court

must set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its order granting

or denying a preliminary injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2) (“[I]n granting or

refusing an interlocutory injunction, the court must . . . state the findings and

conclusions of law that support its action.”). Because the district court order in this

case does not meet this standard, we “remand for further findings of fact and

conclusions of law” “to permit meaningful review.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v.

Enforma Nat. Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended.

In assessing whether the Tribe has met its burden under Winter v. Nat. Res.

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), the district court should explain, on an

individualized basis, why the evidence does or does not show a likelihood of

3 dissipation. See, e.g., Rep. of the Phil. v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362-64 (9th

Cir. 1988); cf. Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1085 (9th Cir. 2009). In

addressing the Tribe’s state law claims for constructive trust and accounting, the

district court should also determine and explain whether the Tribe made specific

and individualized showings that each Defendant was likely to dissipate the

purportedly misappropriated assets. See Heckmann v. Ahmanson, 168 Cal. App. 3d

119, 136 (1985) (recognizing the availability of a constructive trust to prevent

dissipation of assets).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

4