Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02332/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02332-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1601 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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GINGER L. HUGHES, an 

individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BRAVO CREDIT CORPORATION; 

PERFORMANCE ONE FINANCIAL, 

INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for 

the Registered Holders of Bravo 

Mortgage Asset Trust Backed 

Pass-Through Certificates, 

Series 2006-1, 

 Defendants. 

 /

No. Civ. 2:07-CV-02332 JAM KJM

ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

The matter before the Court is Ginger L. Hughes’ 

(“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining 

Order (“TRO Application”). Plaintiff, owner of her principal 

residence located at 17084 Deer Creek Road, Brownsville, 

California 95919 (“Property”), refinanced the mortgage to the 

property on January 3, 2006. On October 30, 2007, Plaintiff 

1

Case 2:07-cv-02332-JAM -KJM Document 40 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 5
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

filed a complaint pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 

15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., to, among other things, enforce her 

right to rescind the loan transaction, void Defendants’ security 

interest in the Property, and avoid foreclosure. On May 28, 

2007, Plaintiff sent Defendants a letter rescinding the loan 

transaction and detailing the TILA violations. On June 29, 

2008, Plaintiff filed an application for a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the 

foreclosure sale, currently scheduled for June 30, 2008, at 1:30 

p.m. Having reviewed and fully considered Plaintiff’s TRO 

Application, the Court hereby grants the application. In doing 

so, the Court finds as follows: 

(1) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over this case because it arises under TILA, 

a federal statute. 

(2) Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the 

merits of their claims because it appears that Defendants did 

not make all the material disclosures as required by the TILA 

and Reg Z, and therefore it is very likely that Plaintiff could 

prevail on the argument that she is entitled to rescind the loan 

within three years from January 3, 2006. See Semar v. Platte 

Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 791 F.2d 699, 703-04 (9th Cir. 

1986) (Technical or minor violations of TILA or Reg Z, as well 

as major violations, impose liability on the creditor and 

2

Case 2:07-cv-02332-JAM -KJM Document 40 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 5
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

entitle the borrower to rescind a loan agreement for up to three 

years.). Because Plaintiff’s rescission letter was sent within 

this time period, it is very likely that the lender’s security 

interest in the Property is void. The lender cannot foreclose 

on the Property without a security interest. As such, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff has shown a strong likelihood of success on 

the merits. 

(3) Plaintiff has made the necessary showing of the 

possibility of imminent, irreparable injury to warrant immediate 

injunctive relief. The Court finds that imminent foreclosure of 

Plaintiff’s principal residence constitutes irreparable injury. 

See Sundance Land Corp. v. Comty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 

840 F.2d 653, 661-62 (9th Cir. 1988) (foreclosure on real 

property constitutes irreparable injury). The Court notes that 

Plaintiff’s right to rescind expires upon the sale of the 

property, 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3), and therefore if foreclosure 

is permitted to proceed, she will lose her right to rescind the 

loan transaction. The Court also finds that the balance of 

hardships favor Plaintiff in that the harm Plaintiff stands to 

suffer from foreclosure substantially outweighs any financial 

harm Defendants stand to suffer by a delay in selling 

Plaintiff’s residence. Accordingly, Plaintiff has made the 

required showing to obtain a temporary restraining order. 

3

Case 2:07-cv-02332-JAM -KJM Document 40 Filed 06/30/08 Page 3 of 5
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

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s TRO 

Application is GRANTED pending the hearing on her motion for 

preliminary injunction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Defendants and their agents, servants and employees are 

restrained and enjoined during the pendency of this action from 

engaging in or performing any act to deprive Plaintiff of 

ownership and/or possession of the real property located at 

17084 Deer Creek Road, Brownsville, California 95919 

(“Property”), including, but not limited to, instituting, 

prosecuting, or maintaining foreclosure or sale proceedings on 

the Property, from recording any foreclosure instrument, deeds 

or mortgages regarding the Property or from otherwise taking any 

steps whatsoever to deprive Plaintiff of ownership and/or 

possession in the Property, and in particular from proceeding 

with the sale of the Property scheduled for June 30, 2008. 

This temporary restraining order is effective immediately. 

As security pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the deed of trust shall remain on the Property as 

security for the payment of such costs and damages as may be 

incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been 

wrongfully enjoined or restrained. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this temporary restraining order 

shall be binding on the parties to this action and all other 

persons or entities who receive actual notice of this order. 

4

Case 2:07-cv-02332-JAM -KJM Document 40 Filed 06/30/08 Page 4 of 5
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

Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE at 1:30 p.m. on 

July 10, 2008, why you, your agents, servants and employees 

should not be restrained and enjoined during the pendency of 

this action from engaging in or performing any act to deprive 

Plaintiff of ownership and/or possession of the Property, 

including but not limited to instituting, prosecuting, or 

maintaining foreclosure or sale proceedings on the Property, 

from recording any deeds or mortgages regarding the Property or 

from otherwise taking any steps whatsoever to deprive Plaintiff 

of ownership and/or possession in the Property, and in 

particular from proceeding with the sale of the Property. 

The briefing schedule for the order to show cause is as 

follows: 

(1) Plaintiff shall immediately serve Defendants with this 

Order and all papers she has filed in support of her TRO 

Application. 

(2) Defendants shall file, no later than 2:00 p.m. on July 

7, 2008, a memorandum of points and authorities showing cause as 

to why a preliminary injunction should not issue. 

(3) Plaintiff shall file, no later than 2:00 p.m. on July 

9, 2008, a responsive memorandum of points and authorities. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 30, 2008 

 

5

Case 2:07-cv-02332-JAM -KJM Document 40 Filed 06/30/08 Page 5 of 5