district court in equity to enter a preliminary injunction freezing assets.”). The court concludes that when a creditor asserts an equitable claim to a debtor’s specific assets, and seeks a remedy to recover specific assets, the court may, in the interim, invoke equity to preserve the status quo pending judgment where the legal remedy might prove inadequate, and the preliminary relief would further the court’s ability to grant the final relief requested. See RoDa Drilling, 552 F.3d at 1208. As a result, and as a means of preserving the status quo in this case, the court concludes that it is authorized to enjoin the dissemination, disposal and spending of the Tax Refunds because JPMorgan’s Counterclaims seek various forms of equitable relief. See, e.g., Oncology Assocs., 198 F.3d at 496 (<HOLDING>). I. Nexus of Equitable Claims To the Assets
holding that tull did not mandate a jury trial in a state environmentalenforcement action for injunctive relief and civil penalties where the civilpenalty statute contained multiple factors including equitable restitution and the legislatures statement of purpose emphasized the importance of protecting and maintaining the natural resources of the state and of preserving the status quo goals that were equitable  in nature holding that it was error not to dismiss plaintiffs causes of action for negligence and unjust enrichment there being no commonlaw right of privacy in new york where the plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for the unauthorized reuse of his image and voice in a television commercial holding that a preliminary injunction was a reasonable means of preserving the status quo and was of the same character as the ultimate relief sought when a few but not all of the causes of action in the complaint were of an equitable nature including causes of action for unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust holding that the scope of section 541 is broad and includes all kinds of property including causes of action holding that although money had and received and unjust enrichment were pled as separate causes of action they are really the same cause of action