Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdiscoveryinjunctionmotion
plaintiffdefendantdiscoveryinjunction

Related Cases

Kamelgard v. Macura, 585 F.3d 334
View Case »
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319, 1999 A.M.C. 1963, 67 USLW 3682, 67 USLW 4490, Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,943, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4692, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5172, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6071, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 379
View Case »
In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295, 867 P.2d 706, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595
View Case »
Johnson v. U. S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 169 So. 115
View Case »
Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92, 55 USLW 4197, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,267
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Asterbadi, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 818714

Facts

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered a judgment against Nabil J. Asterbadi in favor of CIT Group/Equipment Finance Inc. in 1993. Over the years, CIT filed notices of partial satisfaction of the judgment and eventually assigned its interest in the judgment to Wells Fargo in 2015. Asterbadi contested the enforcement of the judgment, claiming that he was entitled to an accounting and that the assignment to Wells Fargo was ineffective.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered a judgment (“Judgment”) in favor of CIT Group/Equipment Finance Inc. (“CIT”) and against Nabil J. Dr. Asterbadi (the resident agent for and a stockholder of Zachair Ltd.) on October 4, 1993.

Issue

Whether Asterbadi is entitled to a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the judgment and whether he is entitled to an accounting of the judgment amount.

Dr. Asterbadi argues in his letter that enforcement of the Judgment should be barred because CIT and Wells Fargo took no action for a decade, and he wants discovery to find out why.

Rule

To obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must show irreparable injury, inadequate remedies at law, a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and that the injunction would not disserve the public interest.

To obtain a permanent injunction, 'a plaintiff must show (1) irreparable injury, (2) remedies at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury, (3) the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant warrants a remedy, and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest.'

Analysis

The court applied the rule for permanent injunctions and found that Asterbadi, as the judgment debtor, could not demonstrate irreparable injury. The court noted that the judgment was based on the injury to the judgment creditor, and Asterbadi had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims against Wells Fargo. The court also considered Asterbadi's request for an accounting and construed his motion as one for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(5).

Insofar as it is, indeed, injunctive relief that Dr. Asterbadi seeks, he cannot, as the judgment debtor (not the plaintiff), show irreparable injury at this juncture.

Conclusion

The court denied Asterbadi's request for a permanent injunction but granted his request for discovery to determine the current amount due on the judgment.

Thus, Dr. Asterbadi is not entitled to a permanent injunction.

Who won?

Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. prevailed in the case as the court found that Asterbadi did not meet the requirements for a permanent injunction and that the judgment was enforceable.

Wells Fargo, now Plaintiff in this action, has standing to enforce the Judgment; and the Judgment is enforceable because the time during which it can be enforced started to run on the date the Judgment was certified in this Court, i.e., August 27, 2003.

You must be