Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02496/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02496-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

KENNETH HUGHES; JEAN HUGHES,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; FIRST

AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO.;

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,

INC.; TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2496-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Kenneth and Jean Hughes Petition for

Temporary Restraining Order. (Dkt. #1).

On December 1, 2009, Plaintiffs lodged the instant petition for a Temporary

Restraining Order (TRO) with the Court. (Id.). The petition concerns a Trustee’s Sale of

Plaintiffs’ property located at 22604 N. 31st Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85027, that is scheduled to

occur on December 23, 2009. Plaintiffs have asked that the Court enjoin the sale.

It appears as though Plaintiffs have not provided Defendants with notice of the instant

TRO petition. 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,”or that “the movant's attorney certifies

Case 2:09-cv-02496-MHM Document 4 Filed 12/04/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

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). In the instant case, Plaintiffs have not met the demands of

Rule 65(b) since their petition was not accompanied by an affidavit or a verified complaint

explaining why Defendants have not been provided with notice of this matter, or a certified

writing explaining their efforts to give notice and why it should not be required.

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)). As the

Trustee sale is not scheduled until December 23, 2009, a little less than three weeks from

now, the Court does not believe that ordering Plaintiffs to notify Defendants of this matter

will cause them prejudice. Therefore, before the Court will consider Plaintiffs’ Motion for

a TRO, Plaintiffs must notify Defendants of this action and provide proof of that notice to

this Court. If Plaintiffs believe that such notice should not be required, they must explain to

this Court the reasons for that belief in compliance with Rule 65(b).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs must give Defendants proper notice of

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

DATED this 4th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-02496-MHM Document 4 Filed 12/04/09 Page 2 of 2