Summary
instructing that "the relevant inquiry is not simply whether plaintiff seeks any equitable relief, but whether there is a 'nexus' between the assets sought to be frozen . . . and the equitable relief requested in the lawsuit"
Summary of this case from Coley v. Vannguard Urban Improvement Ass'n, Inc.Opinion
No. 02 C 7025
October 23, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rules 64 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure freezing $1,000,000 of the assets of defendant Citizens for Sheahan, a political campaign committee supporting defendant Michael F. Sheahan, the Sheriff of Cook County.
We believe that Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999), governs our decision. In Grupo, the Supreme Court held that, in an action for money damages, federal district courts do not have the power to grant preliminary injunctions to prevent a defendant from transferring assets in which no lien or equitable interest is claimed. Here, plaintiff does not claim a lien or an equitable interest in the assets of Citizens for Sheahan.
Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Grupo by pointing out that it was a different type of case, a debt collection action, and that the Grupo plaintiff sought to freeze all, not just a portion, of the defendant's assets. Plaintiff does not explain why these factual differences are meaningful, and we do not find them dispositive.
Plaintiff also argues that Grupo does not apply because that case involved a claim for only money damages, whereas plaintiff seeks both equitable and monetary relief. However, one of the cases cited by plaintiff himself, United States ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology Associates, P.C., 198 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 1999), a post-Grupo decision, instructs that the relevant inquiry is not simply whether plaintiff seeks any equitable relief, but whether there is a nexus between the assets sought to be frozen through an interim order and the equitable relief requested in the lawsuit. See 198 F.3d at 496-97. The relief sought in the complaint consists of compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages, "injunctive relief to prevent further violations of law," restoration of job assignments, back pay and front pay, attorney's fees, costs, and all other proper and just relief. (Complaint, Introduction ¶¶ 33, 40.) None of the specific equitable relief sought involves the assets of Citizens for Sheahan.
Accordingly, pursuant to Grupo, we hold that we do not have the power to grant a preliminary injunction preventing Citizens for Sheahan from transferring its assets. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied.