Burr & Associates, LLC v. Doe 1
3:25-cv-01381
D.S.C.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Burr & Associates, LLC (Burr), a South Carolina law firm, was defrauded in connection with a real estate closing, relying on fraudulent wire instructions and wiring $456,862.96 to an account controlled by the defendants.
- The fraud involved hacking communications related to the closing, impersonating parties, and directing Burr to wire funds to an account (the Truist 1857 Account) not associated with the legitimate transaction.
- After discovering the loss (with $140,137.24 recovered by Truist), Burr filed suit under RICO and related state law claims on March 6, 2025, and sought urgent injunctive relief and limited pre-service discovery to identify the unknown defendants.
- Burr moved ex parte for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to freeze the disputed accounts and prevent dissipation of funds, claiming imminent and irreparable harm.
- The court addressed Burr’s motions for a TRO and for discovery before service, reviewing their sufficiency under applicable legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRO – Irreparable Harm | Funds at risk of further dissipation without court intervention | Not directly presented (unknown defendants) | TRO denied; no clear showing of harm |
| TRO – Timeliness/Delay | No specific justification for delay; seeks emergency relief | Not directly presented | Delay undermines claim of urgency |
| Pre-service Discovery on Doe Defendants | Needs discovery to identify anonymous defendants and trace funds | Not directly presented | Denied without prejudice; must refile |
| Preliminary Injunction – Likelihood of Success | Strong chance of prevailing on merits under federal/state law | Not addressed (not reached due to threshold issue) | Not reached; no irreparable harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, etc.)
- Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cnty., 722 F.3d 184 (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy only for urgent, clear circumstances)
- United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518 (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve status quo until trial)
- Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (granting preliminary injunction within equitable discretion of the court)
- Christopher Phelps & Assocs., LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532 (appellate review of injunctive relief discretion)
- Hughes Network Sys., Inc. v. InterDigital Commc’ns Corp., 17 F.3d 691 (danger of mistake in granting preliminary injunction is substantial)