United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SHARON
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before
the Court is Plaintiff ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.'s
(“ConocoPhillips”) Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.[1]
On
December 12, 2019, ConocoPhillips commenced this action
against Forrest Wright, Amanda Wright, Nathan Keays, Kelly
Keays, Eco Edge Armoring LLC, David Benefield, Wright Capital
Investments, LLC, and DB Oilfield Support Services
(“Defendants”) asserting eight counts: (1) RICO
claims, (2) embezzlement, (3) fraud, (4) conversion, (5)
unjust enrichment, (6) breach of contract, (7) constructive
trust, and (8) piercing the corporate veil.[2] ConocoPhillips
alleges that between April and October 2019, its former
employee, Mr. Wright, fraudulently obtained approval to
purchase materials and services from DB Oilfield and Eco Edge
totaling more than $7, 000, 000.[3] ConocoPhillips alleges that
these materials and services were never provided, but that
Mr. Wright used misrepresentation and fraud to convince his
colleagues at ConocoPhillips that they had been provided and
to pay the vendors.[4]
Also on
December 12, 2019, ConocoPhillips filed an ex parte motion
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction,
seeking an order preventing Defendants from
“withdrawing, transferring, or dissipating in any
manner any funds, or selling any real or personal property
(including vehicles) until such time as the Court has ruled
further on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, or otherwise
prevent the transfer or sale of any assets purchased, or
partially purchased, paid for or maintained with the
fraudulently obtained, embezzled funds.”[5] In support of its
motion, ConocoPhillips provided, among other things, an
affidavit from its Security Manager, Jeff Laughlin, and from
its Director of Treasury Services, Cindi Klose.[6]
On
December 13, 2019, the Court granted ConocoPhillips'
motion for a temporary restraining order and set a hearing on
the motion for a preliminary injunction for December 26,
2019.[7]
On
December 19, 2019, Defendant Kelly Keays filed a response and
non-opposition to ConocoPhillips' motion for a
preliminary injunction.[8] Specifically, Ms. Keays did not object
to the preliminary injunction “subject to the terms of
a stipulation reached between ConocoPhillips and Ms.
Keays.”[9] As set forth in the stipulation,
ConocoPhillips agreed that Ms. Keays could set up a new
checking account to deposit her paychecks and she could
“withdraw funds from her employer-sponsored retirement
plan” to cover living expenses and to pay her legal
fees.[10] The Court entered an ordered adopting
the stipulation at Docket 33.
On
December 23, 2019, Defendants Eco Edge and Nathan Keays also
responded to ConocoPhillips' motion for a preliminary
injunction.[11] Defendants Eco Edge and Mr. Keays
indicated that they would not oppose the entry of a
preliminary injunction subject to certain modifications that
would allow Mr. Keays access to certain funds.[12]
None of
the remaining Defendants-Forrest Wright, Amanda Wright, David
Benefield, Wright Capital Investments, LLC, and DB Oilfield
Support Services- has made an appearance in this case or
filed a response to ConocoPhillips' motion for
preliminary injunction. ConocoPhillips has filed proof of
service for each Defendant.[13]
On
December 26, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion for
a preliminary injunction. Counsel for ConocoPhillips was
present, as was counsel for Ms. Keays, and counsel for Mr.
Keays and Eco Edge. None of the parties put forth evidence at
the hearing. After some discussion, the participating parties
agreed to the terms of the preliminary injunction; those
terms are incorporated into the Court's order as set
forth herein.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Plaintiffs
seeking injunctive relief must establish “(1) they are
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
(3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a
preliminary injunction is in the public
interest.”[14]
Injunctive
relief is an equitable remedy, and “[t]he essence of
equity jurisdiction is the power of the court to fashion a
remedy depending upon the necessities of the particular
case.”[15]
DISCUSSION
Based
on the record before the Court, including the additional
evidence filed by ConocoPhillips at Docket 30, the Court
finds that there is good cause to enter a preliminary
injunction, ...