Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00001/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00001-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN FINK AND SUSAN FINK,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-00001-YGR 

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT.

NO. 35)

On March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs John Fink and Susan Fink filed their second Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order. (Dkt. No. 34.) 

The Court previously granted a motion for temporary restraining order and order to show 

cause on a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 13.) That temporary restraining order was effectively 

dissolved by the Court in the context of its order granting the motion of Defendant Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) to motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and denying a preliminary 

injunction. As the Court set forth therein, there were numerous defects in each of Plaintiffs’ 

claims. 

Plaintiffs now make a second attempt to support a temporary restraining order to stop the 

foreclosure sale of the subject property, currently scheduled for March 26, 2015. Plaintiffs 

contend that there are changed circumstances supporting injunctive relief, to wit: (1) because 

“Plaintiffs incurred a change in income and submitted a new loan modification application on 

March 24, 2015,” foreclosure would be in violation of California Civil Code section 2923.6, and 

(2) Wells Fargo violated the single point of contact provisions in California Civil Code section 

2923.7. 

The scant evidence Plaintiffs offer in support of their temporary restraining order does not 

support the arguments in the motion. Plaintiffs offer no evidence to show that they have incurred 

a change in income, submitted a new loan modification application, or suffered violations of the 

single point of contact provisions in section 2923.7. The only evidence offered by Plaintiffs is the 

Case 4:15-cv-00001-YGR Document 36 Filed 03/25/15 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

declaration of Susan Fink, which in turn attaches or references: (1) a 44-page document entitled 

“Loan Disposition Analysis,” stating that it was prepared by “Real Estate Service and 

Technology,” on March 17, 2015, for “Top Gun Auditor;” and (2) a letter dated December 30, 

2014, from Susan and John Fink addressed to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. (Fink Dec. at 2:9-11, 

referencing Dkt. No 8-4, Declaration of Susan Fink filed January 7, 2015, at Exh. C.) The “Loan 

Disposition Analysis” does not provide evidence in support of either argument. While the letter 

indicates that Plaintiffs spoke with two different representatives at Wells Fargo, it is not enough to 

support a claim for violation the “single point of contact” provisions in section 2923.7, without 

more. Cf., e.g., Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.7(e): “For the purposes of this section, “single point of 

contact” means an individual or team of personnel each of whom has the ability and authority to 

perform the responsibilities described in subdivisions (b) to (d), inclusive.” 

In short, Plaintiffs have failed to offer evidence to support a temporary restraining order. 

For that reason, the motion is DENIED. 

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 35. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 25, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-00001-YGR Document 36 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 2