1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WOODSIDE INVESTMENTS, INC.; No. 2:20-cv-00042-JAM-CKD

S AND W STEEL FABRICATORS,

10 INC.; DENNIS WOOD; and SUSAN

WOOD,

11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 12 v. 13

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

14 GROUP, INC. (d.b.a. PAR

FUNDING); FAST ADVANCE

15 FUNDING, INC.; JOSEPH LAFORTE, an individual; and 16 DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On December 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Woodside Investments, Inc., 20 S and W Steel Fabricators, Inc. (“S&W Steel”), Dennis Wood, and 21 Susan Wood filed a suit against Complete Business Solutions 22 Group, Inc. (“Par Funding”), Joseph LaForte, and Fast Advance 23 Funding, Inc. (“Fast Advance”) in Yolo County Superior Court. 24 Notice of Removal at 6-36 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. Defendants 25 removed the case to federal court, invoking this Court’s 26 diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2. 27 Dennis Wood is the president of Woodside Investments and the 28 Vice President of S&W Steel; Susan Wood is the Vice President of 1 Woodside Investments and the President of S&W Steel. Memo. ISO 2 TRO (“Mot.”) at 2, ECF No. 4-1. From December 2018 through 3 October 2019, Woodside Investments and S&W Steel entered into six 4 contracts with Par Funding and one contract with Fast Advance. 5 Mot. at 3. After Plaintiffs defaulted on these agreements, Par 6 Funding and Fast Advance filed written Confessions of Judgment 7 with the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Mot. at 5. 8 Plaintiffs signed these confessions as part of their contracts 9 with Defendants. Id. The Pennsylvania court entered a final 10 judgment against Plaintiffs after they failed to challenge the 11 confessions. Opp’n at 3-4, ECF No. 19. 12 Defendants contend the contracts Plaintiffs signed were 13 factoring agreements whereby Defendants purchased accounts 14 receivable from Woodside Investments and S&W Steel. Id. 15 Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue the contracts amounted to 16 illegal and unenforceable usurious loans. Mot. at 3-5, 7-10. 17 Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and for 18 an order to show good cause for why the Court should not issue a 19 preliminary injunction. Amended Mot. For TRO, ECF No. 4. 20 Plaintiffs’ aim was to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the 21 Pennsylvania judgment in California. Id. The Court denied the 22 motion in part, finding Plaintiffs were not entitled to a 23 temporary restraining order because they failed to prove they 24 faced an immediate risk of irreparable harm. Jan. 16, 2020 25 Minute Order, ECF No. 6. The Court now considers Plaintiffs’ 26 motion as a motion for preliminary injunction.1 Defendants’ 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 28 oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 1 opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs did not file 2 a reply. Having read and considered the parties’ arguments, the 3 Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 4 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 As the briefs illustrate, the parties are deeply familiar 7 with the factual and procedural underpinnings of this case. The 8 Court does not need to restate that information here. 9 10 II. OPINION 11 A. Judicial Notice 12 Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of 13 Woodside’s website: Michael & Company Precision Metal 14 Fabricators at http://michaelandcofabricators.com/home. See 15 Defs.’ Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), ECF No. 20. The 16 website is being offered to “indicate what Plaintiffs have put 17 about themselves in the public realm”—specifically, that 18 “Woodside and/or S and W holds itself out as a sophisticated 19 company” that has “over 50 employees” and has been doing 20 business since 1991. RJN at 2 (citing Ex. A. to RJN). 21 Plaintiffs do not oppose this request. 22 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to “judicially 23 notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because 24 it (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial 25 jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined 26 from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 27

28 scheduled for February 25, 2020. 1 FRE 201(b). Moreover, it is well-established that courts may 2 take judicial notice of matters of public record. Finder v. 3 Leprino Foods Co., No. 1:13-cv-02059-AWI-BAM, 2019 WL 6894468, 4 at *3 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2019). The Michael & Company 5 Precision Metal Fabricators website is a matter of public record 6 and, therefore, a proper subject of judicial notice. 7 By judicially noticing the Michael & Company website, the 8 Court takes as true that the website exists and makes certain 9 representations about the company to the public. The Court does 10 not, however, assume the veracity of any of the representations 11 the website contains. For example, the Court acknowledges that 12 the Michael & Company Precision Metal Fabricators website 13 (available at http://michaelandcofabricators.com/home) maintains 14 that the company has “over 50 employees.” In doing so, the 15 Court does not take as true that Michael & Company does, in 16 fact, have over 50 employees. Bearing this nuance in mind, 17 Defendants’ request is GRANTED. 18 B. Analysis 19 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic 20 remedy.’” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) 21 (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). 22 Plaintiffs seeking this type of relief bear the burden of 23 persuasion. Id. They must make “a clear showing” that they are 24 “likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to 25 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 26 that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an 27 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural 28 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Lopez, 1 680 F.3d at 972. 2 Because “[f]lexibility is the hallmark of equity 3 jurisdiction,” the Ninth Circuit adopts a “sliding scale 4 approach” to this four-factor test. Alliance for the Wild 5 Rockies v. Cottrell, 732 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011) 6 (modification in original). As its name suggests, the sliding 7 scale approach requires courts to “balance” the Winter factors. 8 Id. at 1131. Although this balancing does not free plaintiffs 9 from making a “clear showing” on each of Winter’s requirements, 10 it relieves them of any obligation to prove each factor to the 11 same degree. Id. “For example, a stronger showing of 12 irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing of 13 likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. 14 Put simply, Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing on any 15 of Winter’s factors. Plaintiffs do not cite to any legal 16 authority that would permit a federal court to disturb a final 17 state court judgment under these circumstances. Nor do any of 18 the four cases Plaintiffs cite support a finding that they are 19 likely to face irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, that 20 the balance of equities tip in their favor, or that the public 21 interest favors issuance of a preliminary injunction. Defendants 22 identified these shortcomings, among others, in their opposition. 23 See generally Opp’n. Plaintiffs nevertheless opted to forego 24 filing a reply brief. 25 Plaintiffs bore the burden of demonstrating they were 26 entitled to the extraordinary relief they requested. They failed 27 to meet this burden. As a result, Plaintiffs’ motion for 28 preliminary injunction is denied. 1 2 Til. ORDER 3 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 4 Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: February 20, 2020 Lh Ion teiren staves odermacr 7008 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28