Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01134/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01134-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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 For example, the certificate of service for U.S. Bank National Association as

trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston Heat-205-2 (doc. #18-8) states that documents were served

on US Bancorp on June 27, 2008 to the authorized agent for service. The documents listed as

served include: the Summons, the initial Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet and Notice of emergent

[sic] hearing for TRO. But there is nothing in the certificate of service stating that U.S. Bank

National Association was served with the Amended Complaint; the Order granting the TRO and

setting the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction; and the motion for preliminary

injunction. 

08cv1134

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. CONNORS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOME LOAN CORP. dba EXPANDED

MORTGAGE CREDIT, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1134-L(LSP)

ORDER EXTENDING

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER [doc. #7]; REQUIRING

SERVICE OF PROCESS; SETTING

BRIEFING AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION DATES

The Court granted plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order on July 2, 2008

[doc. #7] at which time a hearing on a preliminary injunction was set for July 15, 2008. The

initial preliminary injunction hearing was continued because there was an insufficient showing

that the defendants had been served with the Summons, Amended Complaint and motion for

preliminary injunction. A subsequent hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction

was held on July 18, 2008. Again no defendants appeared at the hearing and there remained

issues concerning service of process on all defendants of all the documents filed by plaintiff.1

Case 3:08-cv-01134-L-LSP Document 19 Filed 07/18/08 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

2 08cv1134

Upon review of the certificates of service provided by plaintiff, it was clear defendant

America’s Servicing Company (“ASC”) had received no notice of this action because plaintiff

mistakenly believed that Pite Duncan LLP was authorized to accept service of process on behalf

of ASC. Prior to the continued preliminary injunction hearing, the Court and plaintiff received

a letter from counsel for Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. (“CWRC”) that stated: “Please allow

this letter to definitively confirm to the Court and plaintiff that Pite Duncan LLP is not

authorized to accept service of process for any defendant except CWRC in this matter and does

not represent any party except CWRC.” (Letter dated July 18, 2008 from Thomas N. Abbott,

Pite Duncan LLP.) The Court therefore concluded that it could not enter a preliminary

injunction as ASC received no notice of this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1) (“The court

may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.”). 

A court may extend a TRO beyond the 10 day period set forth in Rule 65(b)(2) upon a

showing of good cause. The reasons for the extension must be entered in the record. Id. Here,

the Court finds good cause to maintain the TRO for an additional period of time. The Court

finds, as it did in granting the TRO, that the imminent foreclosure of plaintiff’s residence

presents a real and significant threat of irreparable harm, see Sundance Land Corp. v. Comty

First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 840 F.2d 653, 661 (9th Cir. 1988) (foreclosure of real property

irreparable harm), and on balance, the harm likely to result to plaintiff from foreclosure

substantially outweighs any financial harm to defendants if the restraining order is not continued. 

Further, because of the gravity of the consequences to him if the TRO is lifted, plaintiff should

not be harmed as a result of his counsel’s inability to properly effectuate service of documents

and her lack of understanding of the notice offered by the Court’s electronic case filing

procedures. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The temporary restraining order entered on July 2, 2008 shall remain in full force

and effect and defendants are enjoined from conducting a sale of the subject

property pending further proceedings in this matter;

2. Plaintiff shall effectuate service of process on defendant ASC not later than Friday,

Case 3:08-cv-01134-L-LSP Document 19 Filed 07/18/08 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 2 Plaintiff is again admonished that the Court’s electronic filing process – CM/ECF

– will not provide notice to any entity that has not made an appearance in this action.

3 08cv1134

July 25, 2008. Plaintiff shall also file a declaration setting forth the documents that

have been served on each of the defendants and the manner of service used not

later than Friday, July 25, 2008;

3. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all defendants not later than July 23,

2008.2

 

4. Defendants shall file any response to the motion for preliminary injunction not

later than August 1, 2008. 

5. The motion for preliminary injunction shall be heard on August 8, 2008 at 10:00

a.m. in Courtroom 14. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2008 

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01134-L-LSP Document 19 Filed 07/18/08 Page 3 of 3