Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01203/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01203-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

- 1 - 10cv1203

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW ROBERTS, an individual,

and JOYCE ROBERTS, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1203-H (JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

vs.

RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS,

INC., a Delaware corporation;

PROSPECT MORTGAGE, LLC f/k/a

METROCITIES MORTGAGE LLC, a

Delaware corporation; GMAC

WHOLESALE MORTGAGE CORP.,

f/k/a GMAC MORTGAGE CORP., a

Delaware corporation; AMERICAN

HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING,

INC., a Delaware corporation;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SERVICES, LLC, a

Delaware corporation; and T.D.

SERVICE COMPANY, an unknown

entity,

Defendants.

On June 4, 2010, Plaintiffs Matthew and Joyce Roberts filed a complaint for rescission

and damages pursuant to the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and for

unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

(Doc. No. 1.) On July 7, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte request for temporary restraining

Case 3:10-cv-01203-H-JMA Document 10 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 10cv1203

order and preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the sale of the secured property. (Doc. No.

4.) 

Preliminary injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders (“TROs”) are reserved for

emergency circumstances where the rights of a party are in urgent need of protection. Granny

Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438 (1974). Apart from showing the

necessity for immediate relief, applicants for a TRO must meet the same standards as for a

preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Hunt v. Nat’l Broad. Co., Inc., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th

Cir.1989). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public

interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Marlyn

Nutraceuticals, Inc, v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009).

In a rescission action under TILA, the party seeking rescission must restore to the

non-rescinding party all consideration received under the contract. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b);

Yamamoto v. Bank of New York, 329 F.3d 1167, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, Plaintiffs

have not tendered the loan proceeds, nor have they plausibly alleged that they are capable of

doing so. Plaintiffs concede that they fell behind on their mortgage payments and received a

notice of default in December 2009. (Doc. No. 4 at 3; Doc. No. 9-2, Notice of Default).

According to the Notice of Default recorded by Defendant American Home Mortgage

Servicing, Inc. on December 18, 2009 and sent to Plaintiffs on December 23, 2009 by

Defendant T.D. Service Company, Plaintiffs were behind on their loan payments in the amount

of $92,529.13 as of December 24, 2009. (Id.) Plaintiffs filed this request for temporary

restraining order on July 7, 2010. Plaintiffs have not established that they are likely to succeed

on the merits of their TILA rescission claim. See Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374. Accordingly, the

Court concludes that there are inadequate grounds for issuance of a temporary restraining

order. 

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-01203-H-JMA Document 10 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 10cv1203

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining

order and injunctive relief without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 9, 2010

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Copies to all parties;

Courtesy copy to Sasan Mirkarimi, 

Attorney for Defendant Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. 

Case 3:10-cv-01203-H-JMA Document 10 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 3