Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01859/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01859-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

The first 29 pages of Plaintiff’s “petition for temporary injunction” is identical to the first

29 pages of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s “petition for temporary injunction” is verified.

- 1 - 10cv1859

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1859-IEG(JMA)

Order Denying Request for Temporary

vs. Restraining Order

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Jose Luis Lopez, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint against Defendant Bank

of America, N.A., alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, common law fraud, breach of the

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

violation of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”). Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a petition for temporary injunction [Doc.

No. 4]1

 as well as a petition for restraining order (“TRO”) [Doc. No. 3]. Plaintiff states Defendant

Bank of America has scheduled a foreclosure sale for the week of September 15, 2010, and asks

the Court to enjoin that sale pending resolution of his claims. Nothing in the record indicates

Plaintiff has served Defendant Bank of America with either the Complaint or the motion for

temporary restraining order.

Under Rule 65(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may issue a TRO if

Case 3:10-cv-01859-IEG-JMA Document 6 Filed 09/13/10 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 - 10cv1859

“specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable

injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in

opposition” and “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the

reasons why it should not be required.” The purpose of the TRO is “preserving the status quo and

preventing irreparable harm just so long as necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny

Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (citations

omitted). In order to obtain a TRO or a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must show that he is

“likely to prevail on the merits.” Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 666 (2004). 

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is primarily a general attack upon the lending practices of

Defendant and other lenders over the past ten years. Plaintiff alleges violation of TILA and

RESPA, but does not refer to any particular section of either of those laws. Plaintiff does not

provide copies of any of the loan documents in support of his allegations, and also fails to plead

any of his state law claims with sufficient particularity to allow the Court to determine whether he

is “likely to prevail on the merits.” 

With regard to RESPA, Plaintiff alleges Defendant “charged fees to Petitioner that were in

violation of the limitations imposed by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as said fees

were simply contrived and not paid to a third party vendor.” [Complaint, Doc. No. 1, p. 14.] 

However, the remedy for a violation of RESPA is monetary damages and costs, not injunctive

relief. Gray v. Central Mortg. Co., 2010 WL 1526451 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 2605,

which provides for the payment of actual damages, costs, and attorneys fees for plaintiffs alleging

a violation of that section). Furthermore, although violations of TILA may justify injunctive

relief, Plaintiff in his complaint fails to allege with any particularity what disclosures Defendant

was required to but failed to make.

Loss of one’s home is clearly a serious injury. Kerr v. American Home Mortg. Servicing,

Inc., 2010 WL 3154551 (S.D. Cal. 2010). Nonetheless, Plaintiff is only entitled to a TRO if he

shows both a risk of immediate and irreparable injury coupled with some likelihood of success on

the merits. Ashcroft, 542 U.S. at 666. Here, he has not satisfied such showing. Therefore, the

Court DENIES the motion for temporary injunction [Doc. No. 3]. 

Case 3:10-cv-01859-IEG-JMA Document 6 Filed 09/13/10 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 - 10cv1859

Plaintiff is directed to serve the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction on Bank

of America pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon Plaintiff’s filing of a

proof that such service has been effected, upon written request by Plaintiff, the Court will set a

hearing date and briefing schedule with regard to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction

[Doc. No. 4.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 13, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-01859-IEG-JMA Document 6 Filed 09/13/10 Page 3 of 3