Need Advice Seeking Injunction Against Defaulting Parties In FInance of Vessel

[JAMMED]

California. I am the owner of a vessel in which I formed a co-op with a few other people to help share operating and overhead costs. I sold " 1/4 shares" for lack of a better term for $x.xx to be financed over 90 months at $x.xx per month. I have also included verbiage that if any member is more than 30 days behind on their payments that they will be ejected from the co-op and will forfeit all monies invested with no further action as well as defend and hold harmless any and all parties involved in this co-op. Anyway, one of the co-op members has decided to stop making his payments, refuses to pay anything and yet still thinks he can have use of the vessel! We do have an arbitration clause in the agreement and I will be filing this week.
My question is what's the process I need to take to get the judge to grant this temporary injunction whereby prohibiting use until judgement has been rendered in arbitration? BTW, I am representing myself pro se in arbitration and would like to prepare this injunction by myself as well. Thank you all!

 

[swalsh411]

If you have to ask an internet forum then you are not qualified to represent yourself pro se.

 

[Zigner]

California. I am the owner of a vessel in which I formed a co-op with a few other people to help share operating and overhead costs. I sold " 1/4 shares" for lack of a better term for $x.xx to be financed over 90 months at $x.xx per month. I have also included verbiage that if any member is more than 30 days behind on their payments that they will be ejected from the co-op and will forfeit all monies invested with no further action as well as defend and hold harmless any and all parties involved in this co-op. Anyway, one of the co-op members has decided to stop making his payments, refuses to pay anything and yet still thinks he can have use of the vessel! We do have an arbitration clause in the agreement and I will be filing this week.
My question is what's the process I need to take to get the judge to grant this temporary injunction whereby prohibiting use until judgement has been rendered in arbitration? BTW, I am representing myself pro se in arbitration and would like to prepare this injunction by myself as well. Thank you all!

Your agreement forces arbitration - the judge won't override that agreement by issuing an injunction.

 

[tranquility]

California. I am the owner of a vessel in which I formed a co-op with a few other people to help share operating and overhead costs. I sold " 1/4 shares" for lack of a better term for $x.xx to be financed over 90 months at $x.xx per month. I have also included verbiage that if any member is more than 30 days behind on their payments that they will be ejected from the co-op and will forfeit all monies invested with no further action as well as defend and hold harmless any and all parties involved in this co-op. Anyway, one of the co-op members has decided to stop making his payments, refuses to pay anything and yet still thinks he can have use of the vessel! We do have an arbitration clause in the agreement and I will be filing this week.
My question is what's the process I need to take to get the judge to grant this temporary injunction whereby prohibiting use until judgement has been rendered in arbitration? BTW, I am representing myself pro se in arbitration and would like to prepare this injunction by myself as well. Thank you all!

It's actually a pretty fancy question where there is a circuit split and a difference between state and federal law. The general preliminary injunction that might be had if the contract envisioned and stated it would be a status quo injunction where the party can keep the same relationship until arbitration is had. You don't want that. You want to do an injunction where you just win until the arbitration is heard. I won't go into the requirements in court for a preliminary injunction, as I don't think you can even get to there. There is no real "process". For more on the problem (Although not listing precedents to you.) see:

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/Author/02F7FEED3EC6C2BF85256ADB005D61AB

 

[JAMMED]

It's actually a pretty fancy question where there is a circuit split and a difference between state and federal law. The general preliminary injunction that might be had if the contract envisioned and stated it would be a status quo injunction where the party can keep the same relationship until arbitration is had. You don't want that. You want to do an injunction where you just win until the arbitration is heard. I won't go into the requirements in court for a preliminary injunction, as I don't think you can even get to there. There is no real "process". For more on the problem (Although not listing precedents to you.) see:

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/Author/02F7FEED3EC6C2BF85256ADB005D61AB

Thank you for the link and kind response! I am thinking more along the lines of seeking a Temporary Restraining Order Ex Parte due to his delinquent payment status as well as risking a potential collision that could occur, which would risk my legal exposure as I am the registered owner and would be named as an additional defendant etc... What do you think?

 

[tranquility]

Thank you for the link and kind response! I am thinking more along the lines of seeking a Temporary Restraining Order Ex Parte due to his delinquent payment status as well as risking a potential collision that could occur, which would risk my legal exposure as I am the registered owner and would be named as an additional defendant etc... What do you think?

I think you need to forget that. I suggest you put your energy into wining the arbitration.

 

[justalayman]

Thank you for the link and kind response! I am thinking more along the lines of seeking a Temporary Restraining Order Ex Parte due to his delinquent payment status as well as risking a potential collision that could occur, which would risk my legal exposure as I am the registered owner and would be named as an additional defendant etc... What do you think?

and he is more of a danger to you now than he was when he was paying his contracted payments? That one isn't going to fly anywhere but out the window.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Presumably it is docked. Take steps to restrict him from that property. Change the ignition.

 

[JAMMED]

and he is more of a danger to you now than he was when he was paying his contracted payments? That one isn't going to fly anywhere but out the window.

Actually yes and the reason is that his liability insurance is expired. Thanks for the input

 

[justalayman]

Actually yes and the reason is that his liability insurance is expired. Thanks for the input

actually, he would not be seen as an added concern because...

you already were allowing him to use the boat per your agreement. Nothing has changed concerning that issue.

The insurance is a totally different issue and one you did not say anything about before. Obviously if the person is required to carry liability insurance per the agreement as a requirement to use the boat, then that would be your basis to seek an injunction, not simply that he has not paid his fees as your contract requires.

 

[JAMMED]

actually, he would not be seen as an added concern because...

you already were allowing him to use the boat per your agreement. Nothing has changed concerning that issue.

The insurance is a totally different issue and one you did not say anything about before. Obviously if the person is required to carry liability insurance per the agreement as a requirement to use the boat, then that would be your basis to seek an injunction, not simply that he has not paid his fees as your contract requires.

Point taken. I found out this morning about the insurance which in my opinion would justify a tortious assertion over a possible undue & preventable liability risk for those who are on title and insured.