Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00488/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00488-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

ELLINGTON DANIELS and DIANE

DANIELS,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13cv488-WQH-JMA

ORDER

vs.

COMMUNITY LENDING, INC.; NEW

CENTURY MORTGAGE; THE BANK

OF AMERICA HOME LOANS;

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS;

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; GINNIE

MAE; THE BANK OF NEW YORK;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATIONS SYSTEMS; and

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On February 28, 2013, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a

Complaint which purports to assert claims pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

15 U.S.C. § 1692, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the due

process clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 1). On

March 22, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma

pauperis and requiring the United States Marshal to serve the Complaint and summons as

directed by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 4).

On March 26, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Issuance of an Emergency Temporary

- 1 - 13cv488-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 03/27/13 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

Restraining Order to Stay the Sale of Real Property and Imposition of Permanent Injunctive

Relief Barring the Sale of the Real Property by Defendants” (“Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order”). (ECF No. 6). The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

“incorporates by reference all facts set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.” Id. at 2. The Motion

for Temporary Restraining Order does not contain a separate statement of facts and is not

accompanied by affidavits or other evidence. 

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(a)(1) The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse

party....

(b)(1) The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral

notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: 

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will

result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in

opposition; and 

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to

give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) & (b)(1). 

Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Defendants have received notice of the factual

basis for the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiffs have failed to show “specific

facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A), and Plaintiffs have

failed to “certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not

be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). To the extent Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining

order without providing notice to Defendants of the factual basis underlying the Motion,

Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 65. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n,

Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The stringent restrictions imposed by

Rule 65 on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our

entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice

and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute.”) (quotation omitted). 

To the extent that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order requests a temporary

restraining order, the Motion is denied.

- 2 - 13cv488-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 03/27/13 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

The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order requests “imposition of a permanent

injunction.” (ECF No. 6 at 5). The docket reflects that there has been no showing of service

of the summons and Complaint. “Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction

over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” Omni

Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). Plaintiffs have failed

to demonstrate that this Court has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. Accordingly, to

the extent that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order requests a permanent injunction,

the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is

DENIED. (ECF No. 6).

DATED: March 27, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv488-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 03/27/13 Page 3 of 3