Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00900/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00900-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

Cynthia J. Cantrell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Brian T. Moynihan, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0900 PHX DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action in Maricopa County Superior Court on March 29, 2010.

Dkt. #1-1 at 4-12. Defendants removed the case to this court on April 23, 2010. Dkt. #1.

The first page of Plaintiff’s complaint suggests that she is seeking a temporary

restraining order (Dkt. #1-1 at 4), but she has filed no separate application for a temporary

restraining order (“TRO”). If Plaintiff seeks a TRO in this case, she must file an application

for a TRO that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Plaintiff’s application also

must show that (a) she is likely to succeed on the merits of this case, (b) she is likely to suffer

irreparable harm if a TRO is not entered, (c) the balance of equities tips in her favor, and

(d) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. NRDC, --- U.S. ---, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374

(2008); see Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The Court will not act on Plaintiff’s apparent request for a TRO unless an application

for a TRO is filed.

DATED this 29th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00900-ROS Document 10 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 1