Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00633/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00633-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

Jeannie T. Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

First National Bank of Arizona; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-633-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Among the various motions currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion

for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 22. In the motion, Plaintiff seeks an order, “enjoining

Defendants ... from Title Transfer, dishonoring established Trust and/or subjecting Plaintiff

to abrupt eviction from the subject matter Real Property.” Id. at 1. Defendants respond and

argue that, although Plaintiff received a temporary restraining order blocking the trustee sale

from the state court prior to removal, such temporary restraining order was contingent on

Plaintiff posting a bond, which Plaintiff failed to do. Doc. 27 at 2. Defendants then state that

because Plaintiff failed to post a bond, the trustee sale of the real property in question

occurred on April 14, 2011. Id.

Plaintiff replies and argues that the copy of the state court minute entry submitted by

Defendants is a “false document.” Doc. 32 at 3. Plaintiff seems to be correct that the minute

entry submitted by Defendants appears to be page 1 of a minute entry from March 14, 2011

and page 2 of a minute entry from March 11, 2011. Doc. 27-1 at 3-4. Nonetheless, Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-00633-JAT Document 34 Filed 06/30/11 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

1

 The entire argument of the motion is: “Plaintiff states that this case involves

repeated successful obstructions employed by Defendants to avoid any treatment on the

merits. Plaintiff has made diligent efforts to seek review and not be forced through an illegal

taking rooted in fraud. Plaintiff did move the state court in connection with these same

Defendants, for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff requests that this Court view this

[sic] pleadings as one generated by a pro se litigant. (citation omitted). Plaintiff submits that

this motion is made in the interest of justice.” Doc. 22 at 2.

- 2 -

does not dispute the substance of Defendants’ response; specifically, that the state court

required a bond, that Plaintiff failed to post a bond, and that the Trustee sale has already

occurred. 

Although Plaintiff has requested oral argument on her motion, and an evidentiary

hearing in her reply, the Court does not find either to be necessary because Plaintiff has not

set forth any facts, which if true, would entitle her to preliminary injunctive relief. A plaintiff

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that:

[1] she is likely to succeed on the merits, 

[2] she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

[3] the balance of equities tips in her favor, and 

[4] an injunction is in the public interest. 

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.

2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). If

Plaintiff cannot meet this test, the Court may consider the alternative sliding scale test. “A

preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates ... that serious questions

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s

favor. .... Of course, plaintiffs must also satisfy the other Winter factors.” Alliance for Wild

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (2011) (internal citations and quotations

omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s entire argument in her unsigned motion is three paragraphs. None

of the paragraphs addresses likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance

of equities, or the public interest. Doc. 22.1

 Thus, on this record, the Court will not grant

Case 2:11-cv-00633-JAT Document 34 Filed 06/30/11 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

- 3 -

preliminary injunctive relief. However, this Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff re-moving

for a preliminary injunction if she can show facts which support each of the prongs listed

above for seeking a preliminary injunction.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 22) is

denied, without prejudice.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00633-JAT Document 34 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 3