Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01459/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01459-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 42:1471 Declaratory &amp; Injunctive Relief - Foreclosure Sale

---

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

Fred Griisser; Julie Ann Griisser, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Shapiro, Van Ess & Shermann, LLP;

Green Tree Servicing LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12-CV-1459-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiffs: 1) a motion for a

temporary restraining order (Doc. 1); 2) a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. 2); and 3) a motion requesting that the U.S. Marshall’s Service serve Plaintiffs

temporary restraining order (Doc. 3). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, Plaintiffs’ motion for TRO is denied, and their

Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ motion requesting service is denied as

moot.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Fred Griisser and Julie Ann Griisser filed their Complaint in this action on

July 7, 2012. (Doc. 1). They have not served the Complaint or otherwise provided notice to

Defendants of their suit. (See Docs. 1, 3). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs “ask the court for

relief with the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order” to stop Defendants Shapiro, Van

Case 2:12-cv-01459-GMS Document 6 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Ess & Sherman, LLP and Green Tree Servicing, LLC from foreclosing on Plaintiffs’ real

property (the “Property”). This Complaint consists of fourteen short sentences which make

the following conclusory allegations. 

In November 2011, Plaintiffs were allegedly given “Bankruptcy protection” on their

Property. (Doc. 1 at 2). This protection provided that Plaintiffs could “‘sign over’ the

property without foreclosure.” (Id.). Defendants, however, are alleged to have ignored this

“Bankruptcy protection” and the Property is scheduled for a foreclosure auction on July 9,

2012. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have tried to “collect the full amount of the

discharged mortgage thru deception, duress, strong-arming and other practices not allowed

by law.” (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants “have not carried out their

statutory requirements under the Federal Home Affordable Modification Program.” (Id.).

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides:

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.

Plaintiffs have failed to file an affidavit or otherwise set forth facts in their complaint

which clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs before

Defendants can be heard in opposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Defendants have not,

for instance, produced the alleged Bankruptcy “order” permitting them to avoid foreclosure

by signing over the Property to Defendants. (See Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiffs have also failed to

produce evidence that they would suffer harm via foreclosure that they would not already

suffer by “signing over” their property to Defendants. The Court will therefore deny

Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. 

Moreover, in their Complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to state any claims for which they

Case 2:12-cv-01459-GMS Document 6 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

can be granted relief. Congress has provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a

district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation

of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state

a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 outlines how

prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma

pauperis proceedings not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127

(9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district

court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim” or that is frivolous

or malicious. Id. 

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have engaged in “deception, duress, strong-arming

and other practices not allowed by law,” but Plaintiffs have not identified any legal authority

on the basis of which it is challenging such “practices.” (Doc. 1 at 2). Although Plaintiffs

contend that Defendants “have not carried out their statutory requirements under the Federal

Home Affordable Modification Program,” Plaintiffs have not identified any specific statutory

provisions connected with the FHAMP which have been violated by Defendants. (Id.). Nor

have Plaintiffs alleged particular facts which might make such a violation plausible. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). The Court will therefore dismiss Plaintiffs’

Complaint but do so without prejudice should Plaintiffs wish to amend. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining

order (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Plaintiffs’

Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. Should Plaintiffs desire to file a motion for leave to file

Case 2:12-cv-01459-GMS Document 6 Filed 07/09/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

an amended complaint, they shall do so no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. The

proposed amended complaint shall be attached to the motion for leave to amend and comply

with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and Local Rules of Civil Procedure 15.1. The Court

will not permit the filing of any proposed amended complaint that does not comply with the

requirements of this Order. If Plaintiffs do not file a motion requesting leave to file an

amended complaint by August 8, 2012, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this

action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion requesting that the U.S.

Marshall’s Service serve Plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied as moot.

Dated this 9th day of July, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-01459-GMS Document 6 Filed 07/09/12 Page 4 of 4