Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02441/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02441-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Adam C. Cytron, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PHH Mortgage Corp. et. Al, 

Defendants.

No. CV16-2441-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed an emergency motion to restrain Defendants from evicting 

Plaintiff and his family from their residence. Doc. 18. Plaintiff has filed other motions 

as well. Docs. 11, 12, 14. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be denied. 

 As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff must comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Local Rules, and other federal law, even 

though he is not represented by an attorney. Plaintiff states in some of his filings that he 

is doing his best to comply with the Court’s requirements, which the Court appreciates, 

but the Court cannot give him legal advice, nor can it decline to apply the relevant rules 

and laws simply because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel. 

A. Request for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 18). 

 To obtain preliminary injunctive relief such as a TRO, a plaintiff must show that 

he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that injunctive relief is 

in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). The test 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 19 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

includes a sliding scale. If the plaintiff shows that the balance of hardships will tip 

sharply in his favor, he need not make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the 

merits – the existence of serious questions will suffice. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. 

Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 Plaintiff cites these standards, but fails to show how they are satisfied. Doc. 18. 

Plaintiff’s motion asserts that Defendants have failed to produce the original promissory 

note for his property or to otherwise show that they are actual holders of the note, but 

provides no evidence in support. In addition, Arizona law does not require such a 

showing before a note can be enforced through a non-judicial foreclosure. See Hogan v. 

Washington Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 783 (Ariz. 2012); Mansour v. Cal-Western 

Reconveyance Corp., 618 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1181 (D. Ariz. 2009). Plaintiff’s motion also 

makes reference to various Arizona statutes, fraud, and unfair business practices, but 

again provides no explanation as to why he is likely to prevail on the merits of any of his 

claims. 

 Plaintiff’s motion includes no exhibits or supporting evidence, and no affidavit. 

The motion does make reference to his complaint, but it is not sworn. Doc. 1. 

 Plaintiff also asks for a TRO without notice, but he has failed to address the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Nor does he provide the affidavit 

or verified complaint required by that rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 

 For all of these reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for a TRO. 

B. Other Motions.

 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to hold a telephone conference with 

“USAA” (Doc. 11), but did not explain the purpose of the call or why the Court’s 

permission was needed. Plaintiff does not need the Court’s permission to talk with other 

parties in the case, in person or by phone. The Court notes that USAA does not appear to 

have been served in this case, nor has it made an appearance. The motion will be denied 

as moot. 

 Plaintiff has filed a 74-page motion asking that an accelerated summary judgment 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 19 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

be entered in his favor or that an accelerated hearing be held. Doc. 12. The motion cites 

several different rules, many of them relating to post-trial matters. The motion itself 

seems to suggest that Plaintiff gave Defendants notice of his intent to cancel certain 

obligations under the Truth in Lending Act, and that Defendants failed to respond within 

20 days. The motion says that Plaintiff has communicated with the Consumer Finance 

Bureau and Congress, and implies that this makes possible some Court action. 

 None of the Defendants appear to have been served in this case. Plaintiff is 

required to serve them in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

within 90 days of filing his complaint, and to file a notice of service with the Court once 

each of them has been served, as required by Rule 4(l). Defendants must be made parties 

to this case through service before the Court can take any action on the merits. Once 

Defendants have been served, the Court will hold a case management conference under 

Rule 16 and set a schedule to govern these proceedings. Plaintiff is free to suggest a 

schedule he thinks reasonable, and the Court will consider his suggestion. In the 

meantime, his request for an expedited ruling on the merits is denied. 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to “add pages back in” to his complaint, explaining that 

six pages were omitted when the complaint was filed. Doc. 14. If Plaintiff wishes to 

amend the complaint in the Court’s docket, he must do so in accordance with Rule 15 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 15.1. The Court notes that Plaintiff 

has the right to file one amended complaint as a matter of course under the requirements 

and time limits of Rule 15(a). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining (Doc. 18) is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff’s other motions (Docs. 11, 12, 14) are denied.

 Dated this 1st day of September, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 19 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3