United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2020

CCSAC, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corp

CCSAC, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corp
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided April 24, 2020
CCSAC, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corp

Trial Court Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CCSAC, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-02102-JD 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 10 PACIFIC BANKING CORP, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 14 Defendants.

13 The Court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order in favor of plaintiffs CCSAC, Inc. and CANN Distributors, Inc. and against defendants Pacific Banking Corp. (“PBC”), Justin Costello and GRN Funds, LLC. Dkt. No. 13 (“TRO”). As directed by the TRO order, plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 14. They have established reasonable efforts at service, including what appears to have been successful email service on some defendants, but no defendant has appeared in the case or opposed the motion. For the reasons discussed in the TRO order, the Court grants an injunction on exactly the same terms, intended solely to preserve the status quo pendente lite.

21 Upon receiving actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise, defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any other persons in active concert or participation with them, are prohibited and enjoined from: 24 1. Using, drawing down, transferring or in any way reducing the funds deposited with 25 PBC by CCSAC, Inc. or CANN Distributors, Inc. without their express consent; and 26 2. Deleting, destroying, editing, or in any way altering any records relating to plaintiffs’ 27 deposits, including without limitation all transaction and deposit balance records.

1 Given the nature of the case and the relief ordered, a bond need not be posted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919-20 (9th Cir. 2003); Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999).

4 Plaintiffs are directed to attempt personal and corporate service, and email service, of this order to all known addresses for defendants. Defendants may ask for reconsideration of the || injunction for good cause if and when they appear in the case.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 || Dated: April 24, 2020 JAMES PONATO 11 United ptates District Judge

Z 18

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.