United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: (1) DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (2) DENYING MOTION TO FREEZE ASSETS (3) DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER (4) GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Before this Court are four motions filed by Plaintiff Anastasia Helene Kirkeby. Plaintiff filed (1) a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3); (2) an Emergency Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. 2); (3) a Motion for Order to Freeze Assets and Financial Accounts (Docket No. 6); and (4) a Motion to Appoint Receiver (Docket No. 5). Plaintiff also filed a Supplemental Brief in support of her Motion for a TRO. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions.
On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed her Verified Complaint accompanied by a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). On December 9, 2014, Plaintiff paid the requisite filing fee. (Docket No. 4).
JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase") and California Reconveyance Company ("Cal Recon") are named as Defendants in this action. However, the claims against Chase and Cal Recon are not discernable. Plaintiff also names the following three Defendants but fails to identify their relation to this case or make any claims against them: (1) The Crosby Centers of Escondido, California; (2) AAE Crosby Center; and (3) MHCD, LLC. Plaintiff does not mention the remaining three Defendants anywhere beyond the caption of the Complaint.
According to the Complaint, it appears that this case revolves around The Crosby Centers of Escondido ("The Crosby Centers"), a drug rehabilitation center. Plaintiff claims to be the sole owner and founder of the The Crosby Centers, but due to a restraining order, has lost some or all ownership of it. Plaintiff now seeks a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and permanent injunction against Defendant Larry Burns, who is Acting Director of The Crosby Centers.
On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff claims she learned that Defendant Burns might be having sexual relationships with patients, and that such indiscretions have likely gone on since 2011. Plaintiff also makes generic and conclusory allegations of fraud. In addition, she claims Defendant Burns has violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5.
Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Burns refused to pay rent for The Crosby Centers for over two years. She claims that as a result of failing to make rental payments, The Crosby Centers property is now in foreclosure. Defendant Burns has allegedly stolen the rent money (and perhaps more) and concealed it in other bank accounts for his own purposes. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Burns intends to purchase the property for a low price at the end of the foreclosure proceedings, in an attempt to rid any of Plaintiff's remaining ownership interest in the property and The Crosby Centers.
I. Motion to Proceed IFP
In light of Plaintiff's payment of the filing fee (Docket No. 4), the Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED as moot.
II. Motion for TRO
a. Legal Standard
A temporary restraining order ("TRO") is a form of preliminary injunctive relief limited to "preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). It is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the ...