Fidelity National Financial, I v. Colin Friedman

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not err in determining that Colin Friedman and the other appellees (collectively, the Friedman parties) were “wrongfully enjoined” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) because the Friedman parties “had the right all along” to lend money to Azura. Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 16 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.1994). Nor did the district court err in concluding that Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and Fidelity Express Network, Inc. (collectively, Fidelity) did not rebut the presumption that the Friedman parties are “entitled to have the bond executed and recover provable damages up to the amount of the bond.” Id. The record suggests that the Friedman parties suffered at least some provable damages, and Fidelity did not prove otherwise. Nor did Fidelity adduce any other reasons why it “should not suffer the execution of the preliminary injunction bond.” Id. at 1037 .

The district court’s determination that the injunction was “the direct cause of the failure of [Azura] at the time that it failed” was not clearly erroneous and was sufficient to support the conclusion that the loss to the Friedman parties as a…