Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02608/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02608-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT KINANN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 10-2608 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

CENTEX HOME EQUITY COMPANY, ORDER

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The court is in receipt of plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order filed on

June 14, 2010. Having read plaintiff’s papers and carefully considered the arguments

therein, the court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order.

Preliminarily, it is unclear from the papers whether plaintiffs’ request for a temporary

restraining order proceeds on an ex parte basis. No proof of service of the summons and

complaint or of the application for a temporary restraining order has been filed and no

defendant has entered an appearance. The substance of plaintiffs’ request does not

specifically state whether relief is sought ex parte. Assuming plaintiffs proceed on an ex

parte basis, plaintiffs’ initial request is devoid of any declaration that complies with the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 65 – a necessary prerequisite

before a temporary restraining order may be issued on an ex parte basis. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 65(b) (plaintiff must file an affidavit or verified complaint that sets forth “specific facts . . .

clearly show[ing] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” and furthermore, a written

certification by the plaintiff’s attorney of the “efforts made to give service and the reasons

Case 4:10-cv-02608-PJH Document 9 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

why it should not be required”). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ex parte request for a temporary

restraining order, having failed to satisfy the requisite procedural requirements, must be

denied. 

The court furthermore notes that denial of plaintiffs’ request is also warranted

because, even assuming that plaintiffs had satisfied the procedural requirements for

issuance of a temporary restraining order on an ex parte basis, plaintiffs have nonetheless

failed to establish in their brief and sketchy application that they are likely to succeed on the

merits of any of the twenty causes of action alleged in their complaint or that they are likely

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of temporary injunctive relief as required by 

Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The application

states only that the defendants are “attempting to unlawfully take possession of Plaintiff’s

property.” The court assumes that by this language plaintiffs are implying that foreclosure

and perhaps a foreclosure sale is imminent, but it is not clear that a sale is actually

scheduled nor is the date that it is scheduled set forth in either the complaint or application. 

The complaint also does not provide any specifics from which the court can discern exactly

the action which plaintiffs seek to have enjoined. For example, the complaint provides

simply that, “Defendants have commenced (or are planning to commence) a foreclosure

action under the Note and have scheduled (or will schedule) a non-judicial sale. Said sale

will cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury in that real property is unique.” Complaint ¶

43. Plaintiffs’ conclusory argument in their application that they have “established the

probable validity of [Plaintiffs’] claim to possession of” the property in question, on the basis

of numerous “violations of Federal and State statutes involving the illegal practices of

Defendants in regard to a loan repayment agreement with [Plaintiffs],” is plainly insufficient

to warrant the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order without notice to the

parties restrained. 

Because plaintiffs’ “ex parte” request for a temporary restraining order has failed to

satisfy the procedural requirements of FRCP 65, or additionally meet the requisite

Case 4:10-cv-02608-PJH Document 9 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

substantive legal standard, plaintiffs’ request is accordingly hereby DENIED. If for any

reason plaintiffs wish to proceed with a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction

plaintiffs may simply file the motion and notice it for hearing on a 35 day briefing schedule

as permitted by the local rules. Plaintiffs shall serve the complaint and summons in

addition to such motion, on each defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-02608-PJH Document 9 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 3