Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01318/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN ANBAR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1318-WQHRBB

vs. ORDER

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL

TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE;

ONEWEST BANK, FSB; INDYMAC

MORTGAGE SERVICES;

MERIDIAN FORECLOSURE

SERVICE F/K/A MTDS, INC., A

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA

MERIDIAN TRUST DEED

SERVICE; AND DOES 1 THROUGH

50, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Emergency Ex-Parte Application for Issuance

of a Temporary Restraining Order, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary

Injunction Should Not Issue. (ECF No. 10).

I. Background

On June 6, 2013, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed a Complaint in this Court. 

(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that she is the owner of real property located at 1819

Autumn Place, Encinitas, California, which is encumbered by a Mortgage Note with an

outstanding balance of approximately $557,750. The Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff

does not dispute that money is owed on the mortgage obligation,” but “Plaintiff disputes

the amount owed, and seeks the Court’s assistance in determining who the holder in due

course is of the Note and Deed of Trust.” Id. ¶ 30. The Complaint alleges the following

- 1 - 13cv1318-WQH-RBB 

Case 3:13-cv-01318-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 07/22/13 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

claims for relief: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Quasi Contract; (3) Negligence; (4) Violation

of 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq.; (5) Violation of California Business and Professions Code

Section 17200, et seq.; (6) Accounting; (7) Cancellation of Instruments; and (8) Quiet

Title.

On July16, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Ex-Parte Application for Issuance

of a Temporary Restraining Order, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary

Injunction Should Not Issue (“July 16, 2013 Application for Temporary Restraining

Order”). (ECF No. 4). On July 17, 2013, the Court denied the July 16, 2013 Application

for Temporary Restraining Order because there had been no showing that the Summons

and Complaint had been served upon any Defendant, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate

that the Court had personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. (ECF No. 6).

On July 18, 2013 and July 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed proofs of service, indicating that

the Defendants were served with the Summons and Complaint on July 17, 2013 and July

18, 2013. (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11).

On July 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second Emergency Ex-Parte Application for

Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary

Injunction Should Not Issue (“July 19, 2013 Application for Temporary Restraining

Order”). (ECF No. 10). In the July 19, 2013 Application for Temporary Restraining

Order, Plaintiff seeks an injunction “preventing defendants ... from continuing with their

nonjudicial foreclosure, and/or conducting a Trustee’s Sale of the Subject Property

presently scheduled for July 23, 2013.” Id. at 2.

II. Discussion

When the nonmovant has received notice, as here, the standard for issuing a

temporary restraining order is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction. See

Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). 

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not

be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotation omitted). The party seeking

- 2 - 13cv1318-WQH-RBB 

Case 3:13-cv-01318-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 07/22/13 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

preliminary injunctive relief has the burden to show “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. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

The sole legal basis for the July 19, 2013 Application for Temporary Restraining

Order is California Civil Code § 2923.6(c) and California Civil Code § 2924.12(a). (ECF

No. 10-1 at 11-14). Section 2923.6(c) provides: “If a borrower submits a complete

application for a first lien loan modification offered by, or through, the borrower’s

mortgage servicer, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not record a notice of default or notice of sale, or conduct a trustee’s sale,

while the complete first lien loan modification application is pending.” Cal. Civ. Code

§ 2923.6(c). Section 2924.12(a) provides: “a borrower may bring an action for injunctive

relief to enjoin a material violation of Section ... 2923.6....” Cal. Civ. Code §

2924.12(a)(1).

The Complaint contains no claim arising under—or reference to—California Civil

Code § 2923.6(c) or § 2924.12(a). The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff

“submit[ted] a complete application for a first lien loan modification offered by, or

through, [Plaintiff]’s mortgage servicer,” or that “the complete first lien loan modification

application is pending.” Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6(c). The Complaint does not allege “an

action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material violation of Section ... 2923.6....” Cal.

Civ. Code § 2924.12(a)(1). The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood

of success on the merits.

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 19, 2013 Application for Temporary

Restraining Order is DENIED. (ECF No. 10).

DATED: July 22, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1318-WQH-RBB 

Case 3:13-cv-01318-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 07/22/13 Page 3 of 3