Bouche

Colorescience, Inc. v. Bouche

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 20203:20-cv-00595California1,707 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

Background 23 On March 30, 2020, Plaintiff Colorescience, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Colorescience”) 24 filed a complaint against Defendants Stephen Bouche (“Bouche”), Eric D. Nielson, and 25 the Nielsen Law Firm, P.C. (collectively “Defendants”) seeking to enforce its subrogation 26 lien, a constructive trust and injunctive relief under an ERISA provision, 29 U.S.C. § 27 1132(a)(3). (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary 28 restraining order (“TRO”) “enjoining Stephen Bouche, [Mr.] Nielsen, the Nielson Law Firm P.C., and any other party from dissipating, transferring, pledging, spending, disposing of, or encumbering the settlement proceeds received or to be received by or on behalf of Stephen Bouche from the action pending in the District Court for Harris County, Texas captioned Stephen Bouche v. Quantum Hospitality, LLP, Cause No. 45760. (Dkt. No. 2.) After full briefing by the parties, and a hearing, the Court denied the TRO on April 9, 2020. (Dkt. No. 17.) On April 21, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Stephen was never a Plan Participant; therefore, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.