Case Activity (346)

1. Notice | Filed: May 14, 2026 | Entered: May 14, 2026 Nobles v. Lasater et al

   Other Fraud | California Southern

   Notice (Other)

   NOTICE REGARDING STATUS OF DEFENDANT KCAP RE FUND II, LLC by Michele Nobles, Nobles Joshua Holdings, LLC (Taylor, Dane)

2. Filed: May 07, 2026 | Entered: May 07, 2026 Empire Trust, LLC et al v. Cellura et al

   Securities/Commodities | Nevada

   Minute Order Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ~Util - Terminate Deadlines/Hearings

   MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/7/2026.

   Before the Court is Plaintiffs' renewed motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") (ECF No. 134 ("Motion").) Having reviewed the Motion, Defendants' response (ECF No. 138 ("Response")), and Plaintiffs' reply (ECF No. 140 ), the Court determines a hearing is unnecessary and therefore vacates the hearing scheduled for May 11, 2026 (ECF No. 137). Plaintiffs ask for an emergency TRO under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 "to prevent additional withdrawals, transfers, encumbrances, concealment, or dissipation of specifically identified proceeds and traceable assets until the Court can hold an expedited preliminary-injunction hearing on notice." (ECF No. 134 at 10.) "An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion' and is 'an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.'" Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22, 32 (2008)). To qualify for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must satisfy four requirements: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm; (3) that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. A plaintiff may also satisfy the first and third prongs by showing serious questions going to the merits of the case and that a balancing of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff's favor. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 623 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the Ninth Circuit's "sliding scale" approach continues to be valid following the Winter decision). The Court finds Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits or even serious questions going to the merits, so the Court need not address the other Winter factors. As Defendants point out in their Response (ECF No. 138 at 10-14), the Motion discusses "movements of funds," but Plaintiffs failed to address any of the specific claims alleged in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 128 ) in any meaningful way to show serious questions going to the merits to meet their burden for seeking the "extraordinary remedy" of a TRO. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion (ECF No. 134 ).

   (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

3. 344 additional result(s)