Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00104/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00104-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

NANCY GUEDA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, as trustee for

HARBORVIEW 2006-10; DOUGLAS A

TOLENO, ESQ.; DAVID E.

MCALLISTER, ESQ.; ROCHELLE L.

STANFORD, ESQ.; PITE DUNCAN,

LLP, DOES 1-10;

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-00104-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Nancy Gueda’s Verified Complaint

For Declaratory Relief to Void Forcible Entry and Detainer. (Dkt. #1).

On January 19, 2009, Plaintiff lodged the instant Complaint with this Court.

Plaintiff’s filing is labeled as a Verified Complaint and requests a temporary restraining

order (the words Temporary Restraining Order are handwritten at various places on the

otherwise typewritten document). The Verified Complaint alleges that Defendants sold

Plaintiff’s property located at 3105 Simitan Drive, Lake Havasu City, Arizona, at a public

sale on May, 14, 2009, and, based on the injunctive relief sought, are now or will soon be

attempting to forcibly remove her from that property. Complicating matters, Plaintiff has

not identified a date on which she expects such an action to occur. 

Case 2:10-cv-00104-MHM Document 5 Filed 01/20/10 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

1

If Plaintiff’s decision to file a Verified Complaint was an attempt to apply for an ex

parte TRO, it is not clear from the document itself, as no mention of Rule 65(b) is made. See

FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A) (allowing an application for an ex parte TRO to be made in a

“verified complaint”).

- 2 -

It is clear, however, that Plaintiff has not provided Defendants with notice of the

instant TRO petition.1

 Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any

TRO issued without notice include “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint

[which] 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 that “the movant's attorney

certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be

required.” FED.R.CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A)–(B). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned district courts

against issuing a TRO without notice to the adverse party, stating that the “[c]ircumstances

justifying the issuance of an ex parte order are extremely limited.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n,

Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.

Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974)). 

In the instant case, Plaintiff has not met the demands of Rule 65(b) since her petition

was not accompanied by an affidavit or a verified complaint explaining why Defendants have

not been provided with notice of this matter and a certified writing explaining their efforts

to give notice and why it should not be required. Furthermore, the urgency of Plaintiff’s

TRO is not apparent from its contents as Plaintiff has not identified the date on which she

expects to be forcefully removed from her home or, in other words, the date by which she

relief must be granted, if it is to be granted at all. Accordingly, the Court cannot determine

from her papers if requiring Plaintiff to comply with Rule 65(b) will cause her prejudice.

Therefore, before the Court will consider Plaintiff’s request for relief, Plaintiff must notify

Defendants and provide proof of that notice to this Court. If Plaintiff believes that such

notice should not be required, she must explain to this Court, in compliance with Rule 65(b),

the reasons for that belief.

Case 2:10-cv-00104-MHM Document 5 Filed 01/20/10 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must give Defendants proper notice of this

action or else comply with Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00104-MHM Document 5 Filed 01/20/10 Page 3 of 3