Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02228/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02228-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
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

1

 According to the Proof of Service accompanying the TRO motion, Plaintiffs mailed copies

of the motion to Defendants on December 8, 2008. Consequently, it is unlikely that Defendants have

yet to receive notice of this action. 

- 1 - 08cv2228

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN SANTANA; HURI MORENO,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08cv2228 JM(POR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.

FIRST NLC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC;

AMERICAN CAPITAL FINANCIAL

SERVICES, INC., SAXON MORTGAGE

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs commenced this Truth in Lending Act action on December 2, 2008. While the

summons has issued, Defendants have yet to be served with the complaint. On December 8, 2008

Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to enjoin the foreclosure

sale of Ms. Santana’s home currently scheduled for December 11, 2008.1 Plaintiffs also move to

dispense with the bond or security requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62. 

The court declines to rule on the TRO motion until after Defendants are served with the

summons, complaint, and moving papers. True ex parte relief under Rule 65(b), like that requested

by Plaintiffs here, is justified only in the most extraordinary circumstances. The stringent

requirements of Rule 65(b) recognize that “our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court

Case 3:08-cv-02228-JM-POR Document 4 Filed 12/10/08 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 - 08cv2228

action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of

a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974).

Here, Plaintiffs, represented by counsel since at least July, 2008 ( Haskins Decl. ¶2), have

known for weeks or months about the foreclosure sale yet waited until the eve of the sale to move ex

parte for relief. As a prerequisite to granting ex parte relief under Rule 65(b), Plaintiff’s counsel must

certify “in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1). As Plaintiffs’ counsel fails to set forth any basis for the court to forego notice

to Defendants prior to granting injunctive relief, the motion for a TRO is denied without prejudice.

In sum, the motion for a TRO is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs are informed that, after

notice to Defendants, the court will move expeditiously on any further request for injunctive relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 10, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-02228-JM-POR Document 4 Filed 12/10/08 Page 2 of 2