Mohindra v. Boghara
2:25-cv-02050
D. Ariz.Jun 26, 2025Background
- Dr. Raghav Mohindra sold his interest in a medical practice to Epic Medical Services AZ LLC (Epic AZ), owned by Dr. Haresh Boghara, via a 2021 agreement with payments tied to the practice's earnings.
- A dispute arose in 2023 about payments owed to Mohindra under the agreement; arbitration concluded in 2025 with a $6.8 million award in Mohindra’s favor for unpaid amounts.
- In March 2025, Mohindra learned Epic AZ’s assets had been sold to Optima Medical for $7 million, but Optima did not assume existing liabilities.
- Mohindra alleged Boghara and another defendant, Christopher Kelly, siphoned the sale proceeds to themselves to evade payment of the arbitration award.
- Mohindra sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent further dissipation of the sales proceeds; Epic AZ moved to intervene in the litigation.
- The court granted a 21-day TRO preserving the status quo, finding serious questions on the merits of fraudulent transfer, and set an expedited schedule for further briefing and a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of Success on Fraudulent Transfer | Boghara acted with intent to evade payment to Mohindra; transferred proceeds improperly | Proceeds never truly transferred or sequestered; available to creditors | Plaintiff showed at least serious questions on the merits |
| Irreparable Harm | Funds dissipated; likely unable to collect award if no TRO | Funds are identifiable and not at risk; no harm in delay | Plaintiff would face irreparable harm absent TRO |
| Balance of Equities | Continued dissipation threatens judgment collection | No significant harm to defendant since funds are sequestered | Balance of hardships favors plaintiff |
| Public Interest and Bond Requirement | TRO necessary to maintain the status quo; no or minimal bond should be required | Would suffer damages if all personal assets frozen; wants bond | TRO granted, $10,000 bond set, public interest favors preserving funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes four-factor standard for injunctive relief)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions and hardship balance can justify TRO in Ninth Circuit)
- Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for asset freeze and irreparable harm)
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (purpose of TRO is to maintain status quo)
- Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2003) (bond may be reduced or dispensed with for some TROs)