Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02223/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02223-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

Plaintiff’s counsel is gently reminded that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply

in Federal Court. The roughly equivalent Federal Rule is rule 65(b). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John McCune, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Citimortgage, Inc., a New York

Corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2223-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application For Issuance of a Temporary

Restraining Order and Memorandum of Law In Support Thereof (Doc. 25). This document

was filed late in the day yesterday. It was not filed with any request for a hearing, or any

expedited request for ruling. This Court was unaware of it until defense counsel called after

office hours, asking how the Court would proceed with the Application. 

The Application asks that the Court restrain the sale of a trustee’s deed apparently

scheduled for 10:00 A.M. this morning. It is apparent after reading the Plaintiff’s Attorney

Certification Under Rule 65(d) Ariz. R. Civ. P.1

, (Doc. 26), that Plaintiff desires this Court

to proceed to enjoin the sale without providing the Defendant an opportunity to be heard.

Case 2:10-cv-02223-GMS Document 28 Filed 12/07/10 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 -

It is further apparent after reading that same document that defense counsel accorded

Plaintiff’s counsel adequate notice of its desire to proceed with the sale on December 7 to

allow Plaintiff to more timely seek a TRO. By filing its unannounced Application for TRO

the night before the sale to be enjoined, Plaintiff’s counsel apparently attempts to avoid

providing defense counsel with the privilege of addressing the specific allegations in the

Application, although defense counsel apparently filed an anticipatory objection (Doc. 23).

Under such circumstances, the Court declines to enter a TRO without allowing defense

counsel the opportunity to be heard concerning the specific allegations of the Applications.

In other words, the Court determines that under the circumstances, Plaintiff’s counsel has not

convinced the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B) that Defendant should not be

given an opportunity to be heard prior to the issuance of a TRO. Because such an

opportunity cannot now be provided prior to the time set for the Trustee’s Sale, Plaintiff’s

Application For Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order will be denied as moot.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application For Issuance of a

Temporary Restraining Order and Memorandum of Law In Support Thereof (Doc. 25) as

moot.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02223-GMS Document 28 Filed 12/07/10 Page 2 of 2