Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00265/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00265-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CESAR F. SILVAS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF

ARIZONA; RESIDENTIAL FUNDING

COMPANY, LLC; RESIDENTIAL

ACCREDIT LOANS, INC.; GMAC-RFC

SECURITIES; RALI SERIES 2007-QA3

TRUST; DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST

COMPANY AMERICAS; HSBC BANK

USA, N.A.; EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE

SERVICES, LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE

BANK, N.A.; JOHN DOES AND JANE

DOES 1-1000; ABC CORPORATIONS IXX; AND XYZ PARTNERSHIPS 1-XX,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-CV-0265-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On March 18, 2009, Plaintiff Cesar Silvas filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order (“TRO”), Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Order to Show Cause. (Dkt. #

18.) In the motion, Plaintiff requested that this Court temporarily enjoin a trustee’s sale of

property located at 1041 S. Edith Ct. Chandler, AZ 58286. The trustee’s sale was scheduled

for March 19, 2009. On March 18, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the matter. (See Dkt.

# 21.) 

Case 2:09-cv-00265-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/24/09 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 authorizes the Court to issue a preliminary

injunction or TRO upon a proper showing. The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as

that for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. The Mind’s Eye

Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2007). To prevail on a request for a

preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show either “(a) probable success on the merits

combined with the possibility of irreparable injury or (b) that [it] has raised serious questions

going to the merits, and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in [its] favor.” Bernhardt

v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit has explained

that “these two alternatives represent ‘extremes of a single continuum,’ rather than two

separate tests. Thus, the greater the relative hardship to the moving party, the less probability

of success must be shown.” Immigrant Assistant Project of Los Angeles County Fed’n of

Labor (AFLCIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

While Plaintiff did submit a verified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), it consists

of seventy-nine pages of amorphous factual and legal allegations against ten named

defendants and an indeterminate number of unknown individuals, corporations and

partnerships. In the FAC, Plaintiff attempts to assert twenty claims against each of the

defendants. Among these claims are allegations that Defendants violated various provisions

of federal law, including : (1) the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.;

(2) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; (3) the

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; and (4) the Home Ownership

Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq. (Dkt. # 1-6 ¶¶ 163-261, 340-

73.) Plaintiff also asserts claims of fraud (id. ¶¶ 276-311), breach of fiduciary duty (id. ¶¶

262-75), conversion (id. ¶¶ 145-53), slander of title (id. ¶¶ 154-156), intentional infliction

of emotional distress (id. ¶¶ 373-77), breach of contract (id. ¶¶ 378-88), civil conspiracy (id.

¶¶ 330-39), and civil RICO violations (id. ¶¶ 310-329). Although it appears that not all

Defendants engaged in the same conduct, Plaintiff has nevertheless alleged that each of the

defendants undertook the same wrongful conduct with respect to all twenty claims.

Additionally, the FAC refers to over twenty exhibits, none of which were presented to the

Case 2:09-cv-00265-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/24/09 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Court. (Id. ¶¶ 85-6.) Outside of the verified FAC, Plaintiff failed to present any affidavits

or other admissible evidence supporting a likelihood of success on the merits. After review

of the FAC and Motion in this matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to grant injunctive relief. Moreover, Plaintiff

has failed to demonstrate that a trustee’s sale is actually scheduled sufficient to demonstrate

the possibility of irreparable injury.

In addition to the requisite showing, a preliminary injunction may issue “only on

notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). A TRO may be granted without notice

to the adverse party:

only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by

affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant

before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in

opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court

in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the

notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should

not be required. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

Here, despite claiming to have sent copies of the Motion to Defendants by mail on

March 17, 2009, and claiming to have attempted to contact some of Defendants’ attorneys

by telephone, Plaintiff presents no evidence suggesting that Defendants received proper

notice of the request for a TRO and preliminary injunction. Additionally, Plaintiff has not

certified in writing the efforts made to notice Defendants or provided any reasons why notice

should not be required. For these reasons alone, the motion should be denied.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-00265-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/24/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that injunctive relief is proper:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition for Temporary Restraining

Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Order to Show Cause (Dkt. # 18) is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00265-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/24/09 Page 4 of 4