Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00489/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00489-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTELL DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. C 10-0489 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ORDER

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Pending before the court is a motion for temporary restraining order and order to

show cause re preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff Estell Davis, seeking to halt the

foreclosure sale of her residence. 

Previously, on February 5, 2010, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary

restraining order, on the ground that she had provided neither proof of service of the

summons and complaint on defendants in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, nor a declaration pursuant to Rule 65(b) showing why she should be excused

from serving the defendants. 

On February 8, 2010, plaintiff filed the present motion, but did not notice it for

hearing. On February 15, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for

February 17, 2010. However, the court advised plaintiff that no hearing would be held

unless plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons, complaint, and motion papers on

Case 4:10-cv-00489-PJH Document 19 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defendants, or filed an adequate Rule 65(b) declaration. 

To date, plaintiff has filed neither a proof of service nor an adequate Rule 65(b)

declaration. Accordingly, the motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED. Once

plaintiff has filed the proof of service or Rule 65(b) declaration, and has noticed the motion

for preliminary injunction for hearing, the court will set the hearing date on its calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00489-PJH Document 19 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2