Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08046/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08046-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

Phillip A. Smith; and Amy R. Smith,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank; Washington Mutual 

Bank, FA; Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-8046-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs Phillip and Amy Smith own real property located in Flagstaff, Arizona. 

They have filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a 

permanent injunction, seeking to enjoin a foreclosure sale of the property scheduled for 

April 19, 2011. Doc. 7. For reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. 

 To obtain preliminary injunctive relief such as a TRO, the plaintiffs must show 

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 injunctive relief is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 

U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The test includes a sliding scale. If the plaintiffs 

show that the balance of hardships will tip sharply in their favor, they need not make a 

strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits – the existence of serious questions 

will suffice. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th Cir. 

2010). Serious questions exist when the plaintiffs show a “‘fair chance of success on the 

merits.’” Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir.1988) (en 

Case 3:11-cv-08046-DGC Document 8 Filed 04/18/11 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

banc) (quoting Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Coston, 773 F.2d 1513, 1517 (9th Cir.1985)). For 

purposes of deciding the motion, therefore, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs 

have shown a likelihood of success on the merits or the existence of serious questions. 

 Plaintiffs assert that their claims for quiet title and declaratory relief (see Doc. 1 ¶¶ 

96-102, 105-08) raise significant legal issues, and that they are likely to prevail on those 

claims because “their Note was ‘securitized’ – pooled and then re-sold to third-party 

investors, likely in the form of certificates evincing ownership in an investment vehicle 

rather than in the form of ownership of a specific promissory note.” Doc. 7-1 at 4. 

Plaintiffs, however, cite no legal authority showing that the securitization of their Note 

renders the scheduled foreclosure sale unlawful or otherwise improper. Plaintiffs claim 

that Defendants must prove who actually owns the Note (id. at 5), but courts in this 

District and others “consistently have rejected this ‘show me the note’ legal theory.” 

Nichols v. Bosco, No. CV-10-01872-PHX-FJM, 2011 WL 814916, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 4, 

2011) (citing Diessner v. MERS, 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1187 (D. Ariz. 2009)). Noting 

that Defendants may be able to establish their legal rights during the discovery phase of 

the litigation, Plaintiffs themselves recognize that they are not likely to prevail on their 

declaratory relief claim. Doc. 7-1 at 5. Plaintiffs state that they seek only to establish 

that Defendants have the legal right to pursue the foreclosure sale (id.), but this is an 

insufficient basis for a TRO or other form of injunctive relief. 

 Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of 

success on the merits or the existence of serious questions, the Court will not issue a TRO 

or a permanent injunction. The Court need not address the other requirements for 

injunctive relief. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for temporary restraining order 

and permanent injunction (Doc. 7) is denied. 

 Dated this 18th day of April, 2011. 

cc: All parties 

Case 3:11-cv-08046-DGC Document 8 Filed 04/18/11 Page 2 of 2