Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02892/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02892-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOPHIA F. LUDYIAN-WOODS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2892-LAB (WMC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;

AND

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO CLARIFY THE SPELLING OF

HER NAME

vs.

AMERICAN MORTGAGE EXPRESS

CORP. dba AMERICAN MORTGAGE

EXPRESS FINANCIAL, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed her complaint seeking relief in connection with

a pending foreclosure. The complaint alleges various types of misbehavior by Defendants

in connection with Plaintiff Sophia Ludyian-Woods’ residential mortgage.

The complaint also includes, as Exhibit C, a document captioned “Declaration of

Sophia F. Ludyjan-Woods [sic] in Support of TRO.” The heading says the temporary

restraining order is being sought in this Court. This document, however, requests the

issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (Compl., Ex. C, ¶ 22),

so the Court construes this as a request for a temporary restraining order.

The Court first notes that the purported declaration is not attested to under penalty

of perjury. Second, it was not filed as a motion, but was tucked away in the complaint as an

- 1 - 12cv2892

Case 3:12-cv-02892-LAB-WMC Document 4 Filed 12/05/12 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

exhibit. It does not comply with this Court’s rules regarding motions. See Civil Local Rule

7.1(f(1). The request for a TRO also does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)’s

requirements, or this chambers’ standing order regarding notice to opposing parties. See

Standing Order, ¶ 5. Finally, the request for a TRO and preliminary injunction does not

adequately address the standards for issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction. See

Stanchart Securities Int’l, Inc. v. Galvadon, 2012 WL 5286952 at *1 (S.D.Cal., Oct. 24, 2012)

(discussing standards for issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction).

The request for a TRO and preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.

The pleadings spell Plaintiff’s surname two different ways. The body of the complaint

spells it “Ludyian-Woods,” while the exhibits (iwhich include the request for TRO and

preliminary injunction, and various property records) spell it “Ludyjan-Woods.” Plaintiff

herself has signed documents spelling her name both ways. (Compare Compl. at 18

(verification signed as “Ludyian-Woods”) and Ex. C at 3 (request for TRO and preliminary

injunction, signed as “Ludyjan-Woods”).) In any case it is important that parties’ names be

spelled correctly, and in this case even more so because it deals with property ownership,

property records and agreements, and an alleged qualified written request.

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to file a declaration under penalty of perjury stating

what the correct spelling of her name is. If for some reason she has used or is using more

than one spelling, the declaration must so state, and give details as well as an explanation.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall promptly notify Plaintiff of this requirement. The declaration must be

filed no later than December 10, 2012. The declaration must be signed by Plaintiff herself,

but her counsel may prepare it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2892

Case 3:12-cv-02892-LAB-WMC Document 4 Filed 12/05/12 Page 2 of 2