AM Helicopter Services, LLC v. Kiaser ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | AM Helicopter Service, No. 2:20-cv-01556-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Kenton Kaiser, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 18 This case arises from a helicopter crash, for which each side of the dispute blames the 19 | other. Compare Compl. 20-34, ECF No. 1 (alleging defendants and third party claimants took 20 | plaintiffs helicopter on unpermitted joy ride and crashed it) with First Am. Third Party Compl. 21 | 99 44-51, ECF No. 19 (alleging plaintiff's negligence and fraud resulted in crash); First Am. 22 | Third Party Counterclaim 4 32-34, 52-57 (alleging same). Earlier this year, plaintiffs moved to 23 | dismiss count one in the first amended counterclaim and first amended third party complaint, and 24 | the court denied the motion in a bench order. See Hr’g Min. (Feb. 5, 2021), ECF No. 34. 25 Plaintiff now requests the court “order Defendant Kenton Kaiser to permit Plaintiff to 26 | remove [remnants of] the Helicopter and its parts from his hangar and to provide the logbook and 27 | keys within 5 days of the Court’s order.” Mot. for Order for Return of Property at 2 (Mot.), ECF 28 | No. 37. In response, defendants argue plaintiff cites no law upon which the court can issue such 1 an order, no admissible evidence to support the court determining any facts, and the defendants 2 assert they have a right to a lien on the plaintiff’s personal property. Opp’n at 2–4, ECF No. 38. 3 Plaintiff in fact does not point to any legal authority in support of its motion. The court 4 construes the motion as a request for injunctive relief and denies the motion without prejudice. 5 To receive an injunction the moving party must demonstrate it “is likely to succeed on the merits, 6 . . . likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, . . . the balance of 7 equities tips in [its] favor, and . . . an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. 8 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). As plaintiff points to no legal authority, plaintiff 9 cannot meet even the first requirement, that of demonstrating likely success on the merits. 10 This order resolves ECF No. 37. The motion is denied. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: October 20, 2021.