Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04998/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04998-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-04998-PSG

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY JULIET NG,

Plaintiff,

v.

US BANK TRUSTEE, NA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04998-PSG

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Re: Docket No. 55)

The court has before it Plaintiff Mary Juliet Ng’s application for a temporary restraining 

order to prevent Defendants U.S. Bank N.A. and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. from proceeding 

with a foreclosure of Ng’s home.1 Ng admits that she refinanced the home in 2007 but has made 

no payments on the loan since 2010.2 Ng nevertheless claims that Defendants cannot initiate a 

foreclosure because they have no interest in the deed of trust and because certain recorded 

assignments of Ng’s deed of trust were invalid.3 Because a party seeking a temporary restraining 

order must establish a likelihood of success on the merits,4the court examines whether Ng has 

made that showing.

 

1

See Docket No. 55.

2

See id. at 16.

3

See Docket No. 45 at ¶¶ 8-19.

4

See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); DISH Network Corp. v. FCC, 

653 F.3d 771, 776-77 (9th Cir. 2011). These cases involve preliminary injunctions, but the 

standard for temporary restraining orders is the same. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John 

D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. 

v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

Case 4:15-cv-04998-KAW Document 63 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-cv-04998-PSG

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

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

Northern District of California

Although Ng’s complaint alleges eleven causes of action,5her application focuses on just 

one: wrongful foreclosure.6 After reviewing the papers and considering the parties’ arguments at 

today’s hearing,7the court cannot say that Ng is likely to succeed on the merits of her wrongful 

foreclosure claim. The reason is that, under California law, a plaintiff may not bring a preemptive 

action for wrongful foreclosure before the sale takes place.

8

 This is precisely what Ng has done.

The application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

5

See id. at ¶¶ 24-120.

6

In her application, Ng does reference her other claims. But she offers nothing to meet her burden 

of establishing that she is likely to succeed on any of these claims.

7

See Docket No. 62.

8

See, e.g., Saterback v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790, 795-96 (Ct. App. 

2016); Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1481, 1493 (2013); Lawrence v. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 14-cv-01272, 2014 WL 2705425, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 

2014).

Case 4:15-cv-04998-KAW Document 63 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 2