Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00129/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00129-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 - 11cv129

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRIS KASZUBA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11CV129 DMS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

AMENDED EX PARTE MOTION

FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

vs.

FIDELITY NATIONAL DEFAULT

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ amended ex parte motion for a preliminary

injunction preventing Defendants from foreclosing on or selling Plaintiffs’ residence. For the

following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.

I.

BACKGROUND

This case involves a loan obtained by Plaintiffs, which is secured by a Deed of Trust on their

property. A foreclosure sale was scheduled for February 4, 2011. (Complaint at 1.) On January 21,

2011, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants Fidelity National Default Services, OCTFCU

Mortgage Co. LLC, and Schools First Federal Credit Union. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint sets forth eight

claims for relief: (1) unfair and deceptive practices, (2) negligence, (3) breach of fiduciary duties, (4)

fraud, (5) predatory lending practices, (6) to set aside and vacate the trustee’s sale, (7) rescission of

the Deed of Trust, and (8) application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Plaintiffs included

Case 3:11-cv-00129-DMS-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 4
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 - 11cv129

an application for a TRO and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued

as a claim for relief in their Complaint. On January 24, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying

Plaintiffs’ application for a TRO on the basis that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of

success on the merits of their claims and had failed to address whether the balance of equities tips in

their favor and whether the injunction is in the public interest. (Doc. 2.) On February 2, 2011,

Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction, seeking this Court’s order

enjoining the foreclosure sale. (Doc. 4.) The Court issued an Order on February 4, 2011 granting

Plaintiffs’ amended motion for a TRO and ordering Defendants to show cause, on or before February

8, 2011, why a preliminary injunction should not be issued enjoining Defendants from taking such

actions until termination of this case. (Doc. 5.) The Court scheduled a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion

for a preliminary injunction for February 10, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiffs Kris Kaszuba and Antonia

Bebar-Kaszuba appeared at the hearing. Defendants did not appear. 

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Injunction Standard

Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing

that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129

S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008). A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 65 must 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.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d

1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374). With respect to the showing a plaintiff

must make regarding his chances of success on the merits, the Ninth Circuit applies a sliding scale

approach. See Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). Under the

sliding scale approach, the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced and, where a

plaintiff can make a stronger showing of one element, it may offset a weaker showing of another. Id.

“Therefore, ‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards

the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows a likelihood of

Case 3:11-cv-00129-DMS-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 4
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 - 11cv129

irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1053. 

Forthe reasons set forth in theCourt’s February 3 Order, the Court finds Plaintiffs have shown

each of the elements necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. 

B. Notice

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), “[t]he Court may issue a preliminary

injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Defendants have not yet appeared in this action and

did not appear at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. However, Plaintiffs

filed with the Court Declarations of Service indicating each of the Defendants was served with a copy

of the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Amended Application for A Temporary Restraining Order

on February 3, 2011 by a professional process server. (Docs. 12-14.) Accordingly, the Court is

satisfied Defendants were given notice of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the

hearing scheduled thereon. 

C. Bond

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction

or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers

proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined

or restrained.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall post a bond in the amount of $1,500.00 by 5:00 p.m. on

February 18, 2011. 

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.

Defendants and their agents, employees, representatives, successors, partners, assigns, and any and all

acting in concert or participation with them are enjoined from transferring, dispersing, encumbering,

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:11-cv-00129-DMS-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 11cv129

or otherwise dissipating Plaintiffs’ real property located at 3857 Pell Place, Unit # 301, San Diego,

California 92130. Plaintiffs shall forthwith serve a copy of this Order upon all Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00129-DMS-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/10/11 Page 4 of 4