Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00646/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00646-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) simply sets forth the three-year time limit an obligor has to exercise his right of rescission. Nowhere does Plaintiff argue that he may exercise this right.

- 1 - 08cv646W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO BANDA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-0646 W (LSP)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc.

No. 5.)

vs.

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC. et.

al.,

Defendants.

On April 9, 2008 Plaintiff Alejandro Banda (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed

a very basic complaint generally alleging that Defendants Chase Home Finance, et. al.

were attempting to wrongfully undertake foreclosure proceedings at certain property

presumably owned by Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 20, 2008 Plaintiff filed an

“Amended Verified Complaint and Emergency Motion for Ex Parte Temporary

Restraining Order [TRO].” (Doc. No. 5.) 

Unfortunately, Plaintiff has not provided any legal analysis showing that he is

entitled to an extraordinary TRO remedy. Without providing any facts and only citing

15 U.S.C. § 1635(f),1

 Plaintiff states in a conclusory fashion that “it is likely that plaintiff

will prevail on his claims.” Plaintiff then states “[i]in an abundance of caution and

Case 3:08-cv-00646-W-LSP Document 6 Filed 05/22/08 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 - 08cv646W

based upon legal and equitable considerations, this Court should enter a Preliminary

Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the unlawful detainer or writ of possession to

allow Plaintiff and Defendant to set forth their respective claims.” (Pl.’s Mot. 2.)

Despite Plaintiff’s characterization, “an abundance of caution” is not the proper

standard under which an application for TRO is decided. 

More importantly, Plaintiff’s TRO motion does not allege any relevant dates, e.g.,

the date on which Plaintiff’s loan closed, the date Defendant plans to foreclose on

Plaintiff’s home, etc. Without knowing whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the

merits, and without knowing how imminent Plaintiff’s injury might be, the Court does

not find that a TRO is warranted at this time. 

In conclusion, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for TRO. Simply, there is

too little evidence that Plaintiff’s property is actually in foreclosure, when any

foreclosure auction might take place, and why Plaintiff is entitled to an extraordinary

TRO remedy. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s action, though, the Court strongly suggests

that Plaintiff retain or consult with an attorney in order to be advised of his rights and

proceed in accordance with the applicable rules of law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 22, 2008

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00646-W-LSP Document 6 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 2