Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02872/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02872-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Notice of Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

3:16-cv-2872-CAB-(NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK WARREN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO & CO., WELLS 

FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-2872-CAB-(NLS)

ORDER ON EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER & REQUEST FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Doc. No. 10]

On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and Attorney Fees. [Doc. No. 10.] That 

same day, Judge Sammartino issued a briefing scheduling on the application. [Doc. No. 

11.] Consistent with the schedule, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo 

Co. (collectively “Wells Fargo” or Defendants) filed their Response in Opposition on 

February 3, 2017, [Doc. No 13], and on February 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Reply [Doc. 

No. 16]. A hearing on Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) Application was 

scheduled for February 16, 2017 before Judge Sammartino. [Doc. No. 17.] Following a 

last minute recusal the TRO hearing was held before the undersigned. [Doc. No. 18.] 

At the February 16, 2017 hearing the parties discussed whether a TRO or 

Preliminary Injunction should issue. Wells Fargo argued in favor of a TRO, requested the 

opportunity to brief the Preliminary Injunction and asked the Court to set an Order to Show 

Cause on the Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff’s position was that Defendants were seeking 

Case 3:16-cv-02872-CAB-NLS Document 30 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-2872-CAB-(NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a second bite of the apple, that they had ample time to prepare their evidence and failed to 

do so. The undersigned agreed to review the procedural background of the case to see if 

Defendants were on notice that the hearing was to be an actual preliminary injunction 

hearing instead of a TRO hearing and if an OSC for Preliminary Injunction needed to be 

set. Wells Fargo agreed to Plaintiff’s requested TRO and was enjoined from selling 

Plaintiff’s residence for 120 days. 

After review of the record, the Court finds that an OSC on the Preliminary Injunction 

would be appropriate. Due to the pending public auction of the property Defendants were 

only given seven days to brief both the TRO and Preliminary Injunction. While their 

Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion focused on making legal arguments in support 

of their position that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements for injunctive relief, 

Defendants’ opposition presented little if any evidence to dispute the facts However, 

Defendants specifically requested “sufficient time to brief the issues for the OSC [roughly 

three weeks] in order to prepare an opposition that will allow it to present a full evidentiary 

record showing that Wells Fargo has properly serviced the loan and that Plaintiff is in fact 

in default.” [Doc. No. 13:8-12.] Judge Sammartino did not address Defendants request. 

Furthermore, the Order setting the hearing references Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order” and set a “hearing on Plaintiff’s TRO Application” can be 

read to support Defendants contention that they were under the impression that they would 

get additional time to brief the Preliminary Injunction issue. [Doc. No. 17 1:27-2:1.]

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that a hearing on the Request for 

Preliminary Injunction will be held on June 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4C. 

Defendants shall have up to and including May 18, 2017 to file their response in opposition

//

//

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-02872-CAB-NLS Document 30 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-2872-CAB-(NLS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff shall have up to and including 

June 1, 2017 to file his reply.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02872-CAB-NLS Document 30 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3