Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00471/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00471-0/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 - 11cv471

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN K. CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV471 DMS (POR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

vs.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining

order (“TRO”) and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued

preventing Defendants from spending or dissipating any of Plaintiff’s real or personal property,

including any money paid by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ loan modification scheme. Plaintiff

included his application as a claim for relief in his Complaint. (Complaint ¶¶ 106-07.) It does not

appear that Defendants have yet been served with the Complaint. For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s application is denied.

The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary

injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to prevent

irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of

Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)(noting a temporary restraining order is

restricted to its “underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just

Case 3:11-cv-00471-DMS-POR Document 3 Filed 03/09/11 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 - 11cv471

so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer”). 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). The standard for issuing a

temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Lockheed

Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). A party

seeking 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). 

Here, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

relief. Plaintiff alleges a trustee’s sale on the subject property was scheduled for October 27, 2010 and

states a claim to set aside the trustee’s sale. (Complaint ¶¶ 34, 54-57.) Therefore, Plaintiff has not

shown he is currently facing irreparable injury in the form of the loss of his home, nor has he shown

how any potential financial injury he is facing is irreparable. Plaintiff also has not demonstrated he

is likely to succeed on the merits of any of his claims. Further, Plaintiff does not address whether the

balance of equities tips in his favor or if the injunction is in the public interest. In the absence of a

showing of these elements, Plaintiff is not entitled to a TRO. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application is

denied without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00471-DMS-POR Document 3 Filed 03/09/11 Page 2 of 2