Taylor Thomson v. Persistence Technologies BVI Pte Ltd.
2:23-cv-04669
| C.D. Cal. | Dec 26, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Taylor Thomson and Defendant Ashley Richardson were involved in a dispute regarding alleged fraudulent inducement to invest in cryptocurrency.
- Thomson alleges Richardson and other defendants made false statements to persuade investment, while Richardson’s counterclaims suggest personal and defamatory conduct by Thomson.
- The case includes multiple causes of action, including fraud, securities law violations, civil conspiracy, and defamation.
- Thomson sought a federal temporary restraining order (TRO) against Richardson, citing alleged harassment, including text messages and threats to disclose information to the press.
- State-level relief had already been granted via a TRO from the Monterey Superior Court against Richardson, prohibiting harassment and gun possession.
- Richardson did not oppose the federal TRO application despite the court granting time to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a TRO is warranted to prevent harassment | Richardson engaged in harassing/threatening conduct justifying a TRO. | No opposition filed by Richardson. | TRO denied; conduct not sufficiently threatening or ongoing. |
| Sufficiency of state court remedies | Existing state TRO insufficient, federal relief still appropriate. | No opposition. | Federal court defers to state TRO, finds existing remedy adequate. |
| Whether conduct rises to level justifying TRO | Texts and threats are harassing and dangerous. | No opposition. | Single day of rude texts does not meet standard for federal TRO. |
| First Amendment considerations | Not directly addressed. | Not directly addressed. | TRO not justified absent more serious or ongoing harassment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (TRO standard mirrors preliminary injunction standard)
- De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (courts have inherent power to restrict abusive litigants, but must exercise caution)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (TRO/preliminary injunction criteria: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions test for injunctive relief)