Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03911/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03911-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

GMAC did not submit a response to the Court’s order to show

cause dated November 20, 2007, but rather chose to rely on its

response to Plaintiff’s earlier motion for a temporary restraining

order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCOS LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GMAC MORTGAGE CORP.; EXECUTIVE TRUST

SERVICES, LLC; GREENPOINT MORTGAGE

FUNDING, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-3911 CW

PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction prohibiting

Defendants from conducting a trustee sale of his house. Defendant

GMAC, which currently holds the mortgage on Plaintiff’s property,

opposes Plaintiff’s motion. The matter was heard on December 6,

2007. Having considered oral argument and all of the papers

submitted by the parties,1

 the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

Case 4:07-cv-03911-CW Document 33 Filed 12/11/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit in connection with Defendants’

attempt to foreclose on his home, located at 7345 Holly Street in

Oakland, California. The following facts are based on the

allegations in the verified amended complaint.

Plaintiff purchased his home in April, 2005. In January,

2006, he refinanced the property with GMAC with a note in the

amount of $371,327.71, secured by a trust deed in favor of GMAC. 

Under the terms of the note, Plaintiff is required to make monthly

mortgage payments in the amount of $1,112.01. Within a month of

the refinancing, GMAC assigned the note to Greenpoint. Over the

next several months, the note was reassigned back and forth between

GMAC and Greenpoint, eventually ending up with GMAC. Plaintiff was

not given adequate notice of the assignments. During this time,

Plaintiff made timely mortgage payments, but several of his checks

were rejected because of confusion over which company held the

loan. Because the checks were not credited to his account, GMAC

declared Plaintiff in arrears and charged him unreasonable fees.

In March, 2007, GMAC started non-judicial foreclosure

proceedings on the property. On or about June 26, 2007, ETS

recorded a notice of trustee sale. In this notice, GMAC demanded

that Plaintiff pay $409,557.49 as the unpaid balance of the note

plus reasonably estimated costs and expenses. This amount is

$38,229.78 in excess of the principal amount of the note and of

what Plaintiff owes given his timely payments.

The trustee sale was originally scheduled to take place on

July 27, 2007, but was stayed after Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in

Case 4:07-cv-03911-CW Document 33 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

Alameda County Superior Court and obtained a temporary restraining

order. Following removal to federal court, this Court issued a

second temporary restraining order prohibiting the trustee sale,

which had been rescheduled for November 26, 2007. Plaintiff now

seeks an order enjoining the sale during the pendency of this

action.

The amended complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) a

request for a declaration that a trustee sale would be invalid; (2)

violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15

U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o; (3) violation of the Real Estate Settlement

and Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617; (4) breach of

the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) fraud; (6) unfair

business practices; and (7) an accounting. Plaintiff also seeks

punitive damages.

DISCUSSION

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must

establish either: (1) a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions regarding the merits exist and the balance of hardships

tips sharply in the moving party’s favor. See Baby Tam & Co. v.

City of Las Vegas, 154 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1998); Rodeo

Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.

1987).

Plaintiff alleges that GMAC and Greenpoint failed to credit

his account properly when he attempted to make his mortgage

payments. GMAC apparently does not dispute that Plaintiff

attempted to make his payments, but claims that his payments were

Case 4:07-cv-03911-CW Document 33 Filed 12/11/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

refused because he provided an invalid account number format when

he attempted to have the funds electronically transferred from his

bank account. GMAC may be accurate in characterizing the heart of

this case as an accounting dispute, but it does not follow that

Plaintiff’s claims have no merit. While the parties have not

thoroughly briefed the precise legal theories underlying

Plaintiff’s causes of action, it appears to the Court that, at the

least, there are serious questions regarding the legality of

Defendants’ practices under the Fair Debt Collections Act, the Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the California Business and

Professions Code.

In addition, the Court finds that the trustee sale of

Plaintiff’s home clearly threatens him with imminent irreparable

harm. See Sundance Land Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 840 F.2d 653, 661-62 (9th Cir. 1988) (foreclosure on real

property constitutes irreparable harm). Given the vast financial

resources of GMAC, any harm it stands to face by a delay in selling

Plaintiff’s home is minor in comparison. Accordingly, Plaintiff

has made the required showing to obtain a preliminary injunction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that

Defendants and their agents, servants and employees are restrained

and enjoined during the pendency of this action from undertaking or

permitting any action of any kind that causes the sale or passing

of the title of the property located at 7345 Holly Street in

Oakland, California. Defendants are further enjoined from

Case 4:07-cv-03911-CW Document 33 Filed 12/11/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Alternatively, Plaintiff may amend the terms of his existing

account so as to require his attorney’s signature before any

withdrawal may be made.

5

undertaking any action to effect an assignment of rents or hinder

Plaintiff’s ability to manage his property or enjoy the fruits of

his property.

Plaintiff has represented that he currently maintains a

separate bank account containing a substantial portion of the back

payments due on his mortgage. As security for losses Defendants

may incur as a result of this preliminary injunction, Plaintiff is

hereby ordered to establish a trust account in his attorney’s

name.2 All of the funds that are, as of this date, contained in

his existing account shall be transferred to the trust account. 

Each month during the pendency of this case, Plaintiff shall

deposit the sum of $1,112.01 to the trust account, plus one-twelfth

the amount of the taxes and insurance premiums due annually on his

property. Additionally, the record reflects that Plaintiff has

posted a bond with the Alameda County Superior Court in the amount

of $1,112.01. Plaintiff shall have this bond exonerated and

deposit the funds in the trust account as well.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/11/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03911-CW Document 33 Filed 12/11/07 Page 5 of 5