Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08132/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08132-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

 Plaintiff begins his motion by stating, “Comes now, Nancy Sundell-Bahrd ...” who

is not the Plaintiff in this case, but actually a Plaintiff in another case in this district. See

Sundell-Bahrd v. Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., 2010 WL 2595083, *2 (D. Ariz. 2010). It seems

apparent that Plaintiff copied Ms. Sundell-Bahrd’s filings. Thus, the Court does not know

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernest De Leon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Recontrust Company; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8132-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order to Cease and Desist

Foreclosure Proceedings,” which the Clerk of the Court has interpreted as a motion for

temporary restraining order. Generally, a temporary restraining order cannot be granted

without notice to the opposing parties. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65. However, there are some

exceptions, including if the movant would suffer irreparable harm before the opposing party

can be heard, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1)(A), or if the movant shows a reason why notice

should not be given, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1)(B).

In this case, the Court cannot ascertain from the motion when Plaintiff will suffer his

alleged harm. He claims he received notice of a Trustee sale on January 28, 2010.1

 Plaintiff

Case 3:10-cv-08132-JAT Document 6 Filed 07/27/10 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 how much of Plaintiff filing is merely a recounting of Ms. Sundell-Bahrd’s situation. 

- 2 -

then asks this Court to order Defendants to “cease and desist with all Foreclosure

Proceedings immediately....” Doc. 5 at 1. However, Plaintiff never states the date on which

the sale is scheduled to occur, nor whether Plaintiff has given notice of this request for

temporary restraining order to Defendants.

Plaintiff has shown no reason why Defendants should not receive notice of this

motion. Further, Plaintiff has not shown that there is insufficient time for Defendants to

received notice before the alleged harm will occur. Moreover, according to Plaintiff’s own

filing, he has known about this Trustee sale since January 28, 2010, but waited almost six

months before filing his motion for temporary restraining order. Plaintiff cannot circumvent

the notice requirement by waiting so long to file a motion for temporary restraining order that

he creates his own emergency. See e.g. Comcast of Illinois X, LLC v. Till, 293 F.Supp.2d

936, 938-39 (E.D. Wisc. 2003); Best Deals on TV, Inc. v. Naveed, 2007 WL 902564, *4

(N.D. Cal. 2007) (Plaintiff cannot show the need for a temporary restraining order without

notice when Plaintiff waited months after learning of the situation to file the request).

Based on this record, the Court will not consider the merits of the motion for

temporary restraining order until Plaintiff gives notice to all Defendants. The Court will

leave the motion for temporary restraining order pending, and will consider the motion once

Plaintiff files a certificate of service as to all Defendants. Thus,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court finds no basis for issuing a temporary restraining

order (Doc. 5) without notice; accordingly the Court will take no action on the motion until

Plaintiff provides notice to all Defendants as indicated above.

DATED this 27th day of July, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08132-JAT Document 6 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2