You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rff Family Partnership, Lp v. Link Development LLC

Citations: 797 F. Supp. 2d 187; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79753; 2011 WL 2748613Docket: Civil Action 11-10968-NMG

Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; July 8, 2011; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

RFF Family Partnership, LP filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against defendants Link Development LLC, Jeffrey B. Karll, Robert V. Wallace (as Trustee of BD Lending Trust), and Russell and Associates LLC. The defendants did not oppose the motion. The court, presided over by District Judge Gorton, granted the preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from transferring, selling, or otherwise disposing of any interests or proceeds related to the ongoing litigation, Link Development LLC v. Stuart Sojcher et al., in the Massachusetts Superior Court and a related case in the Land Court Department. The injunction requires no security bond under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) and will remain effective until the case is resolved on its merits or further court order.

Legal Issues Addressed

Granting of Preliminary Injunctions

Application: The court granted a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from transferring, selling, or disposing of interests related to ongoing litigation.

Reasoning: The court, presided over by District Judge Gorton, granted the preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from transferring, selling, or otherwise disposing of any interests or proceeds related to the ongoing litigation.

Non-Opposition to Motions

Application: The defendants did not oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction, which was subsequently granted by the court.

Reasoning: The defendants did not oppose the motion.

Security Bond Requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c)

Application: The court exercised its discretion to grant the preliminary injunction without requiring a security bond.

Reasoning: The injunction requires no security bond under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) and will remain effective until the case is resolved on its merits or further court order.