Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00161/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00161-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONNIE HILL,

No. CIV S-07-0161 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

LOANSTAR MORTGAGEE

SERVICES, L.L.C., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On January 24, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint concerning foreclosure proceedings. 

Plaintiff seeks rescission of her mortgage loan, the issuance of new loan documents on different terms,

a declaration that defendants have no right to foreclose on the property in question, an order restraining

defendants from taking any action to sell or transfer the property, compensatory damages, punitive

damages, and costs of suit. A motion to dismiss filed by defendant First American Loanstar Trustee

Services is set for hearing on July 13, 2007, and a status conference is set for September 21, 2007. 

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for “an emergency temporary stay order” permitting her to remain

in the property at issue until this case goes to trial.

In general, the purpose of issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status

quo pending a fuller hearing. Here, plaintiff does not seek a temporary restraining order that would

remain in effect for a brief time pending hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction. The legal

Case 2:07-cv-00161-RRB-DAD Document 15 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, both temporary and preliminary, are well

established. To prevail on such a request, the party must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or, in the alternative, show that serious questions have

been raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving party’s favor. Coalition for Econ.

Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co.,

762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). These two formulations of the applicable legal standard represent

two points on a sliding scale, with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. See

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any formulation of the test, movant must demonstrate that

there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” 762 F.2d at 1376. Speculative injury does not

constitute irreparable harm. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir.

1988); Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). If the movant

fails to make the requisite showing of possible irreparable harm, the court need not reach the issue of

likelihood of success on the merits. See 762 F.2d at 1376.

A motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction will not normally be

set for hearing unless the moving party provides a brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the

motion and a declaration that demonstrates the existence of an irreparable injury. Local Rule 65-231(c)

and (d)(2). In addition, the moving party must provide either (1) a declaration detailing the notice

given or efforts to give notice to all affected parties or their counsel, or (2) a declaration showing good

cause why notice could not be given. Local Rule 65-231(a), (c)(5) and (8), and (d)(1). If the moving

party fails to submit the required legal brief and a satisfactory declaration demonstrating the existence

of an irreparable injury, the court cannot find that the motion meets the applicable legal standard. If the

moving party fails to submit the required substantiation regarding notice, the court may be unable to

issue an order governing the conduct of necessary parties. 

Here, plaintiff states that she sought a stay of execution of a writ of possession but the

request was denied on May 2, 2007, and that she was locked out of her property on May 3, 2007. She

asserts that the lock-out left her family homeless and deprived her of a place to conduct an undisclosed

Case 2:07-cv-00161-RRB-DAD Document 15 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

home-based business. She argues that, if the lock-out is permitted to continue, she will lose her

business and her family will suffer extreme hardship. Plaintiff’s motion is supported by a short

declaration, a copy of the state court’s order denying plaintiff’s application for stay of execution of writ

of possession, and a declaration of service on some but not all of the defendants listed in plaintiff’s

complaint.

Plaintiff has not provided a brief on the relevant legal issues presented by her motion. 

Neither the motion nor plaintiff’s complaint demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of

plaintiff’s claims against the defendants. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory statements concerning injury

are insufficient to support the assertion of injury. In addition, plaintiff fails to explain why she did not

seek relief by motion for preliminary injunction soon after filing this case in January 2007 instead of

seeking last-minute relief by motion for temporary restraining order filed almost five months later. See

Local Rule 65-231(b). In accordance with Local Rule 65-231(c), plaintiff’s motion will not be set for

hearing.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 4, 2007 amended motion requesting an emergency

temporary order pending trial is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements

Local Rule 65-231.

DATED: June 6, 2007.

DAD:kw

DDad1\orders.prose\hill0161.mot.den

Case 2:07-cv-00161-RRB-DAD Document 15 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 3