Fed. R. Civ. P. 64

29 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Usaco Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc.
  689 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a district court has the power to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve assets for potential restitution based on a breach of fiduciary duty, even if the defendants argue state law remedies are adequate.
• Reebok Int'l v. Marnatech Enters., Inc.
  970 F.2d 552· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 57×
  The court held that in Lanham Act cases, a district court can in some instances issue a freeze of some assets for some period of time.
• W. T. Grant Co. v. Haines
  531 F.2d 671· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-09 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, as the alleged ethical violations did not warrant such a severe sanction and did not taint the trial.
• In re Feit & Drexler, Inc. v. Drexler
  760 F.2d 406· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 38×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court had the statutory authority to issue a mandatory turnover order for property located outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that the order was appealable as an interlocutory injunction. The court affirmed the district court's o
• Baxter v. United Forest Prods. Co., Inc.
  406 F.2d 1120· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-03 ·cited 37×
  A federal court cannot sequester funds in a diversity action without complying with state attachment laws, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 mandates adherence to state law for such provisional remedies.
• In re Fredeman Litig. Dixie Carriers, Inc. v. Channel Fueling Serv., Inc.
  843 F.2d 821· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-15 ·cited 28×
  A preliminary injunction freezing a defendant's assets unrelated to the underlying litigation is generally impermissible under federal equitable principles and is not authorized by the RICO statute for private plaintiffs seeking damages.
• The Republic OF THE Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos
  862 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-01 ·cited 23×
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Dixon
  835 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-28 ·cited 22×
  A preliminary injunction freezing assets is permissible to secure equitable remedies like restitution, especially when the public interest is involved and the assets are alleged ill-gotten gains.
• In re DeLOREAN Motor Co. v. John Z. DeLOREAN (83-1802)
  755 F.2d 1223· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court's order to escrow sale proceeds, intended to preserve assets for investigation, was a valid preliminary injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, not an attachment governed by state law.
• Skevofilax v. Sergeant William Quigley
  810 F.2d 378· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised ancillary jurisdiction over the police officers' indemnification claim against the township under Rule 69.
• Warner Bros. Inc. v. DAE RIM Trading, Inc.
  877 F.2d 1120· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the award of $100 in statutory damages and denial of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, reversed the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, and dismissed the attorney's appeal with sanctions.
• ODC Commc'ns Corp. v. Wenruth Invs.
  826 F.2d 509· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the partial summary judgment order was not a final decision under Rule 54(b) due to substantial factual overlap with remaining claims and counterclaims.
• Solange Landau v. Vallen
  895 F.2d 888· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 8×
  Alleged victims of a defendant's criminal conduct may seek to attach bail funds in a related civil proceeding, as this does not necessarily undermine the purposes of bail and aligns with New York's attachment laws.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Antonio
  843 F.2d 1311· 10th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the district court had the authority under Colorado law to freeze assets unrelated to the alleged illegal conduct and that the FDIC demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Lechman v. Ashkenazy Enters., Inc.
  712 F.2d 327· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly awarded attorneys' fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 because the temporary restraining order constituted an attachment under state law, securing potential satisfaction of a judgment.
• U. S. Indus., Inc. v. The Honorable Aldon J. Anderson
  579 F.2d 1227· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a motion cannot be used to circumvent the proper procedure of filing a complaint or counterclaim to recover a debt, even if the debt was wrongfully withheld.
• Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd.
  343 F.2d 902· 10th Cir.· 1965-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a cause of action arising under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is a tort, not a contract, and therefore does not permit attachment under Colorado procedural rules.
• Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Int'l Union Local 33 Benefit Funds v. Am's. Marble Source, Inc.
  950 F.2d 114· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-04 ·cited 4×
  The New Jersey Construction Workers’ Fringe Benefit Security Act is preempted by ERISA because it "relates to" employee benefit plans and impermissibly supplements ERISA's enforcement scheme.
• Lowell Fruit Co. v. Alexander's Mkt., Inc.
  842 F.2d 567· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an order refusing to vacate a pre-judgment writ of attachment is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• Brown v. Beckham
  137 F.2d 644· 6th Cir.· 1943-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States, acting through its agent, is exempt from executing a bond for an attachment writ under 28 U.S.C. § 870, even when state law would otherwise require it.
• Cargill v. Sabine Trading & Shipping Co., Inc.
  756 F.2d 224· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-21 ·cited 3×
  A state statute authorizing limited appearances in quasi in rem actions is applicable in federal diversity actions, and filing a counterclaim arising from the attachment does not subject the defendant to full in personam jurisdiction.
• Perpetual Am. Bank v. Terrestrial Sys., Inc.
  811 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an order granting a prejudgment writ of attachment is not an appealable final order under the collateral order doctrine.
• Anthony v. Texaco, Inc.
  803 F.2d 593· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction to freeze funds under ERISA, as it was a valid exercise of equitable jurisdiction and not subject to strict prejudgment attachment standards.
• Giles v. Relevant Media Grp., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-28
  The Court granted Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a writ of garnishment because Plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to the writ by complying with federal and Florida procedural rules.
• Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Spada
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-18
  The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, adopting its findings and granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. v. Vasudeva
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-03
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for writs of garnishment to enforce money judgments against the defendants.
• Runion v. Bernard
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-01
  A motion to file a document under seal is denied when the moving party fails to provide a compelling justification and meet procedural requirements, and the asserted harm is speculative.
• Perez v. Margaritas V&P, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-08
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for an ex parte post-judgment writ of garnishment and appointed a special process server.
• Cardinale v. Wang
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-20
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a clerk's default against the garnishee for failing to answer the writ of garnishment.