Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02894/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02894-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH REGO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2894-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT; AND

ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS;

AND

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

vs.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff Joseph Rego, an attorney registered within this

District’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system, electronically filed his complaint

in this action. The Clerk in response issued a summons electronically (Docket no. 3). 

Rego did not, however, pay the filing fee required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 nor did he

file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Heizelman v. Doe, 2012 WL 5392189, slip op. at *3 (S.D.Cal.,

Nov. 5, 2012) (reaffirming dismissal of civil action for failure to pay the required $350 filing

fee). Because no fee was paid, the Clerk should not have issued the summons. The

summons electronically issued is therefore QUASHED. 

/ / /

/ / /

- 1 - 12cv2894

Case 3:12-cv-02894-LAB-WVG Document 4 Filed 12/05/12 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

In the complaint’s prayer for relief, Rego included a request for a temporary

restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. As a result, the Clerk docketed the

complaint alternatively as a motion for a TRO. (Docket no. 2.) 

The request was improper for several reasons. First, although Rego is asking for a

ruling, his request was not filed or briefed as a motion, but instead was tucked into the

complaint; furthermore, it does not comply with this Court's rules regarding motions. See Civil

Local Rule 7.1(f(1). The request for a TRO also does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)'s

requirements, or this chambers' standing order regarding notice to opposing parties. See

Standing Order, ¶ 5. Finally, the request for a TRO and preliminary injunction does not

adequately address the standards for issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction. See

Stanchart Securities Int'l, Inc. v. Galvadon, 2012 WL 5286952 at *1 (S.D.Cal., Oct. 24, 2012)

(discussing standards for issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction). 

The request for a TRO or preliminary injunction (Docket no. 2) is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2894

Case 3:12-cv-02894-LAB-WVG Document 4 Filed 12/05/12 Page 2 of 2