Harvey v. Torrent Leasing Inc.
2:25-cv-00824
D. Nev.May 14, 2025Background
- John E. Harvey, proceeding pro se, seeks to stop Torrent Leasing Inc. and U.S. Bank, N.A. from garnishing his Nevada bank account to satisfy an Illinois state court judgment.
- After Torrent enforced the Illinois judgment in Nevada, Harvey’s accounts were frozen by U.S. Bank.
- Harvey filed emergency motions in Nevada state court challenging the enforcement, arguing Torrent had not complied with Nevada’s judgment domestication statutes; the court initially granted but then dissolved a temporary restraining order (TRO).
- Harvey now requests a federal TRO and preliminary injunction, arguing ongoing enforcement violates Nevada law and his due process rights.
- The Nevada state court’s dissolution of the TRO was based on findings that situs of the account does not matter and that proper jurisdiction existed in Illinois.
- The federal court screens this complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915a and denies immediate injunctive relief because Harvey failed to meet the legal standards required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domestication of Illinois Judgment before Enforcement | Torrent must domesticate the Illinois judgment in Nevada before garnishing accounts | Illinois judgment and court jurisdiction are valid; situs of account is immaterial | Harvey failed to show irreparable harm; TRO denied |
| Irreparable Harm | Economic injury is irreparable once funds are turned over | Economic harm can be remedied by monetary damages | Economic harm not irreparable; injunctive relief denied |
| Due Process in State Court Proceedings | Nevada court's reversal and failure to rule on motion to quash deny due process | Nevada court properly considered both parties' arguments and applied relevant law | No due process violation found |
| Federal Interference with State Proceedings | Federal court should intervene to prevent unconstitutional enforcement action | State courts are actively handling the matter; federal interference is inappropriate | Abstention appropriate; federal court will not interfere |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets standard for preliminary injunctive relief, emphasizing likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equity, and public interest)
- Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2013) (Ninth Circuit's alternative test for preliminary injunctions — serious questions and balance of hardships)
- Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) (due process met so long as party has full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (economic harm generally not irreparable; injunctive relief standards)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (economic injury alone does not constitut irreparable harm)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings)