Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00129/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00129-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sandra Todd, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.; Chase

Home Finance LLC; Chase Fulfillment

Services; Cal-Western Reconveyance

Corp.; United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development; PK

Management Group Inc.; Secretary of

Housing and Urban Development;

Unknown Parties, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-00129-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion requesting status of temporary restraining

order (doc. 10) and motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") (doc. 11). 

Plaintiff originally filed this action on January 20, 2012. We denied plaintiff's request

for a TRO for failure to satisfy the conditions of Rule 65(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. for issuing

a TRO without notice (doc. 4). Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on April 20, 2012 (doc.

6). Plaintiff alleges two counts for (1) quiet title and (2) breach of contract arising from the

sale of her home at a Trustee's Sale.

Plaintiff's motion for TRO reads in its entirety "[m]otion for relief and issue [sic] of

Temporary Restraining order to be effective immediately." Mot. for TRO at 1. There is no

indication that defendants have been provided notice. The motion does not satisfy the

Case 2:12-cv-00129-FJM Document 12 Filed 04/25/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

requirements for issuance of a TRO without notice. It does not include "specific facts in an

affidavit or a verified complaint" that "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury,

loss, or damage will result to the movant" before defendants can be heard, and does not

certify "in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be

required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Although plaintiff's amended complaint states that she

attempted to confer with an attorney regarding the TRO request made within the complaint,

an email from the attorney submitted by plaintiff indicated that he has not been retained by

defendants in this action.

Moreover, even if the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1) were satisfied, plaintiff has not

met the standards required for issuance of a TRO. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief,

plaintiff must show 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." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Plaintiff's one page motion does not provide

us with any details that would permit even an evaluation of whether issuance of a TRO is

warranted under this standard.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for a temporary

restraining order (doc. 11). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion

requesting status of temporary restraining order on grounds of mootness (doc. 10).

We again urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a lawyer. Only a lawyer can properly

evaluate plaintiff's position and take whatever steps may be necessary to protect plaintiff's

interests.

DATED this 25th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00129-FJM Document 12 Filed 04/25/12 Page 2 of 2