THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
cankral770 et al.,
Plaintiff(s)
v.
EctopIex et al.,
Defendant(s)
Case No. N/A
Presiding Judge: N/A
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, motions for this court to enter a
preliminary injunction in the aforementioned case, in accordance with R. Civ. P. 47.
STANDING AND REQUIREMENTS
Plaintiffs While R. Civ. P. 47 only requires that, in order to obtain an injunction, good
cause must be shown, the acts to be enjoined must be described, and that a hearing is required,
this is not the sole criteria in determining whether or not a preliminary injunction should or can
be granted.
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), in conjunction
with Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) set forth the precedent in which a
preliminary injunction can be granted, which consists of a 4 prong test.
1. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case;
2. Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction;
3. The balance of equities and hardships is in the plaintiff's favor;
4. Granting the injunction is in the public’s interest.
Plaintiffs believe that they can meet all prongs, and as a result, a preliminary injunction
should absolutely be granted.
PRONGS
1. PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs have already filed a civil complaint, which describes, in great detail, the wrongs
of the Defendants, and how they have severely impacted the Plaintiffs. In combination with the
civil complaint, a large docket of evidence has been admitted, showing shady practices, such as
the blocking of clients, the banning of clients from their server, and the sending of money to
alternate accounts, which is suspicious in itself.
While mere suspicion and questionable practices are not concrete allegations, those,
combined with the allegations pre-established and substantiated with cold hard fact, make the
Plaintiffs likely to succeed. Plaintiffs clearly show the establishment of a contract, the transfer of
property and money to the Defendants, and that the other side of the contract has not been upheld
for the Defendants. Plaintiff believes that they have already proven the burden to a standard of
clear and convincing already, and that, while it cannot be said for certain the Plaintiffs will win
the case, there is a clear likelihood of such occurring. This not only meets the first prong, but
further establishes the need for a preliminary injunction, as highlighted by Ashcroft v. American
Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 666 (2004) ("In deciding whether to grant a preliminary
injunction, a district court must consider whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are
likely to prevail on the merits.")
2. WITHOUT THE INJUNCTION, PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO SUFFER
IRREPARABLE HARM
Plaintiffs have already established that harm has occurred, and further stipulate that, if
this injunction is not granted, the Plaintiffs will suffer further irreparable and unnecessary harm.
By not granting this injunction, the Defendants continue to possess the Plaintiff’s farmhouse, to
which they can sell it, deface it, or otherwise lose it. If such happens, Plaintiff will be
significantly harmed by this, having to attempt to reclaim it from whomever receives it, or will
be unable to repair house damages caused by the Defendants.
Additionally, the money possessed by the Defendants, which belongs to the Plaintiffs, is
mobile and able to be moved around or lost. Should the Plaintiffs win the case, which they
already have a likelihood of, if that money is not frozen, the Plaintiffs fear that they will never
see that money as long as they live, and will be further harmed.
Even further, should this injunction not occur, the business will continue scamming
innocent citizens fraudulently, which could happen again to the Plaintiffs, causing even further
harm to them, their bank accounts, and ultimately, those who depend on them. Such can simply
be avoided by granting this injunction.
While the Plaintiffs have proven that further harm is imminent and would be unavoidable
if this injunction isn't granted, the Plaintiffs are not required to, and "The District Court and the
Ninth Circuit also held that when a plaintiff demonstrates a strong likelihood of prevailing on the
merits, a preliminary injunction may be entered based only on a “possibility” of irreparable
harm." Winter supra.
3. BALANCE OF EQUITIES & HARDSHIPS IS IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR
When seeking to enter a preliminary injunction, the court always has to weigh the scale in
order to determine if the injunction is truly necessary: are the restrictions and hardships imposed
upon the Defendants outweighed by the balance of equities and fear of irreparable harm to the
Plaintiffs? In this case, the most logical answer is yes.
There is no doubt that freezing a large sum of money, a property (especially a house), or a
business as a whole, is a big deal, and that is not contested. But, in this case, it is very much
reasonable to do so, taking into consideration what has occurred to the Plaintiffs already, and
what may occur in the future. Defendants have already scammed the Plaintiffs and have taken
their dwelling, their money, and even attempted to gaslight one of the Plaintiffs. In granting this
injunction, the Defense has already forgone any formidable defense and claims of loss revenue or
reputation; they have already scammed the Plaintiffs and publicized their cease and desist order,
their decreasing reputation is the fault of no other but themselves, and lost revenue would surely
be covered up by the fraudulent transactions, a property and over $80,000 has been obtained that
shouldn’t have been in the first place. The granting of such an injunction is crucial.
4. GRANTING THE INJUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST
This prong is met without even saying a single word. The Defendants have already
scammed the Plaintiffs, have taken out and failed to pay a loan in an unrelated separate unfiled
case, and continue to have complaints of the business scamming citizens on a daily basis.
The public is already on the side of the Plaintiffs; the Plaintiffs, while representing
themselves, speak for the public as well, in the sense that nobody should be scammed and
conned out of their money, and that while we are here to primarily discuss the damages of the
Plaintiffs, we mustn’t forget the public and the thousands of consumers in the State of Ridgeway.
In granting this injunction, where the business is halted, the chance of the Defendants
further scamming and frauding other citizens out of their money is eliminated, and the business’
operation is not essential to consumers or to the state, quite the opposite, detrimental to it. In
addition, freezing the money and property is supported by the public’s interest in determining
right and wrong, and to protect them from injury.
CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS
The act of freezing assets in a case of alleged fraud is not foreign or alien, it has occurred
in numerous cases, but most notably Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021)
("Where the Section suspects serious fraud, however, it obtains a temporary restraining order to
freeze assets before ever contacting the charity.") In addition, freezing the money used in these
transactions, as well as the property, isn’t alien either, and has happened in U.S. v. First Nat. City
Bank, 379 U.S. 378, 385 (1965) ("The temporary injunction issued by the District Court seems to
us to be eminently appropriate to prevent further dissipation of assets.")
In addition, this injunction is crucial to ensuring the court is able to adequately provide
relief to the Plaintiffs, when they win the lawsuit. "The protections in place guard against any
routine or arbitrary imposition of a preliminary freeze order designed to stop the dissipation of
assets that would render a court's judgment worthless”, as stated by Grupo Mexicano de
Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 341 (1999), furthers this argument.
If all prongs are met, which they have been, then a preliminary freeze order is justified and
reasonable. If it isn’t entered, and the funds and property are both dissipated, the court’s
judgment would be worthless, as the property is already out of the Defendants’ hands, as well as
the money.
PRAYER
Wherefore, the Plaintiffs pray that the court preliminarily:
1. Enjoins the Defendants, or any person, from inhabiting or entering the property at 3560
Ranger Rd, Cyrus Acres, State of Ridgeway;
2. Enjoins the Defendants from managing, selling, vacating or giving away the property at
3560 Ranger Rd, Cyrus Acres, State of Ridgeway;
3. Enjoins the Defendants from spending the total of $80,000 given to them by the
Plaintiffs, intended to be traded for a property;
4. Recommends to the Secretary of State to halt and suspend the business license of the
Defendant Bank of Ecto;
5. Enjoin the Defendant Bank of Ecto from operating in the sale, management, or purchase
of property;
6. Enjoin the Defendant EctopIex from the sale, management, or purchase of property
connected to the Defendant Bank of Ecto.
DATED: May 10th, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
acerxtro, Esq.
R. Bar No. 17137
Counsel of Record
Cohn, Cicero, & Goodrich LLC
Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments
Palmer, RW 33328
Counsel for Plaintiff
