Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1601 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VITO AIELLO, an individual, )

CANDIDA AIELLO, and individual, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:10-cv-0227-GEB-EFB

)

v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

) EX PARTE REQUEST FOR A 

ONEWEST BANK DBA INDYMAC BANK, ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

a corporation; DEUTSCHE BANK )

NATIONAL, a corporation; LOAN )

NETWORK LENDING DBA PEOPLE’S )

MORTGAGE BANK, a corporation; )

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL, a )

corporation; QUALITY LOAN )

SERVICE CORP., a corporation; )

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST )

COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE INDYMAC )

INDX MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, a )

corporation; DOE 1, a corporation; )

DOE 2-10, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiffs, proceeding in propria persona, filed an ex parte

application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) on January 28,

2010. Plaintiffs argue a TRO is required to prevent “Defendants . . .

from causing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs by attempting to evict

Plaintiffs from their home . . . .” (Appl. 2:1-5). Plaintiffs fail to

present facts showing that their request for injunctive relief should

be decided without Defendants being notified of the injunctive relief 

Plaintiffs seek and provided an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs’

injunction request in a noticed preliminary injunction hearing. 

Case 2:10-cv-00227-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 01/29/10 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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same 

standard applicable to preliminary injunctions.” Pimentel v. Deutsche

Bank Nat. Trust Co., No. 09-CV-2264 JLS (NLS), 2009 WL 3398789, at *1

(S.D.Cal. October 20, 2009)(referencing New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal.

v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n. 2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.)). 

Plaintiffs “seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [they

are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an injunction is

in the public interest.” Id. (citing Winter v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc., –-U.S.–-, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

Plaintiffs argue in a conclusory manner in their ex parte

application that the Defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act

(“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., and the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), as amended, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., and

that those violations resulted in the unlawful sale of their home. 

Plaintiff have provided no sworn facts supporting their arguments, and 

have not shown how their arguments under RESPA entitles them to

prevent eviction from their home. 

Plaintiffs argue under TILA that “Defendants failed to

provide [them] with the required Notice of Right to Rescind,” and

therefore they are entitled to rescind their loan with which they

purchased their home. (Appl. 4:7-8). However, Plaintiffs also argue

their home was sold at a trustee’s sale “on or around October 2009.” 

(Appl. 6:17.) This trustee’s sale appears to defeat Plaintiffs’ right

Case 2:10-cv-00227-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 01/29/10 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

to rescission under TILA, since 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) states in

pertinent part that “an obligor's right of rescission shall expire

. . . upon the sale of the property . . . .”(emphasis added). 

Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to show they have a probability of

success on the merits of their RESPA and TILA claims.

B. Irreparable Harm

Further, Plaintiffs failed to comply with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 65(b), which applies to the ex parte TRO Plaintiffs

seek. Rule 65(b) provides, in relevant part: 

the court may issue a [TRO] without written or oral

notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if

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 . . . . 

Moreover, Local Rule 231(a) provides: “[e]xcept in the most

extraordinary of circumstances, no temporary restraining order shall

be granted in the absence of actual notice to the affected party

and/or counsel, by telephone or other means, or a sufficient showing

of efforts made to provide notice.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 231(a) (emphasis

added). 

Although each Plaintiff provided a declaration, these 

declarations contain no information concerning when Plaintiffs expect

to be evicted from their home. Plaintiffs merely aver they “fear

Defendants will evict [them] from [their] home before [they] are able

to prove that Defendants do not have standing or authority to sell

[their] home,” and that “[i]f the restraining order is not granted

Defendants will continue on with an Unlawful Detainer and [Plaintiffs]

will be evicted . . . . ” (Vito Aiello Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Candida Aillo

Decl. ¶¶ 5-6). These declarations do not shed light on the imminency

Case 2:10-cv-00227-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 01/29/10 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

of the eviction Plaintiffs’ fear, and why Plaintiffs delayed until

filing their ex parte TRO to challenge the impending eviction. 

Plaintiffs appear to have “unduly delayed in seeking injunctive

relief,” which “contradicts [Plaintiffs’] allegations of irreparable

injury.” E.D. Cal. R. 65-231 (b). In addition, Plaintiffs have not

shown that “[a]n eviction from property to which they [may] have no

legal claim [constitutes] irreparable harm.” Wendt v. Edward D.

“Tito” Smith, No. EDCV 02-1361-VAP(SGL), 2003 WL 21750676, at *3

(C.D.Cal. Jan. 30, 2003). 

Further, Plaintiffs have not shown extraordinary 

circumstances excusing their failure to provide Defendants with notice

of the TRO they seek as required by Local Rule 231(a). 

III. CONCLUSION

Since Plaintiffs have failed to show they have a 

likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, that they will

suffer immediate and irreparable harm if their unnoticed TRO is not

granted, and that the circumstances they face are such that they have

no time to file a duly noticed motion for a preliminary injunction,

Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO is DENIED.

Dated: January 29, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-00227-GEB-EFB Document 4 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 4