Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01207-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANAL NAOOM dba L.T.M. AUTO

SALES; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1207 H

(CAB)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER 

(Doc. No. 158.)

vs.

SECURED ASSETS INCOME

FUNDS, an unknown entity; et al.,

Defendants.

SAIF, INC., a California corporation,

et al.,

Counter-Claimant,

 vs.

MANAL NAOOM dba L.T.M. AUTO

SALES; et al., 

Counter-Defendants.

Plaintiffs Manal Naoom, Javad Mousavinia, Parviz Ghadimi, Afshin Kashani,

Mehran Khomamizadeha, and Mohammed Kashan (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their

initial request for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction

on August 11, 2006. (Doc. No. 55.) On August 14, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted another

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 169 Filed 10/31/06 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 -

application for a TRO or preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 65.) In both applications,

Plaintiffs sought to restrain SAIF, Inc. from collecting and selling the inventory held

by the Plaintiffs. On August 25, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted a request for a TRO in

response to SAIF, Inc.’s alleged repossession of several cars. (Doc. No. 79.) The Court

held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ initial request for a TRO on August 15, 2006, allowed

supplemental briefing, and then held a second hearing on Plaintiffs’ multiple requests

for injunctive relief on September 20, 2006. Richard P. Miller appeared for Plaintiffs

and Richard S. Van Dyke appeared for SAIF, Inc. at both hearings. The Court DENIED

Plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief on September 21, 2006.

Presently before the Court, on October 27, 2006 Plaintiffs filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order seeking to restrain SAIF, Inc. from repossessing cars and

altering titles. (Doc. No. 158.) According to the case management conference order

regulating discovery and other pretrial proceedings, however, the parties had to file any

motions, other than motions to amend or join parties and motions in limine, so as to be

heard by October 2, 2006. (Doc. No. 24.) Therefore, because Plaintiffs did not file

their motion until October 27, 2006, the Court DENIES the motion as untimely.

Additionally, the Court notes that the accounting hearing is scheduled to begin in three

weeks, on November 21, 2006.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 31, 2006

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 COPIES TO:

Richard S. Van Dyke, Esq.

Van Dyke & Associates

Faraday Business Park

5741 Palmer Way, Suite B

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Richard P. Miller, Esq.

Law Offices of Richard P. Miller

2207 Garnet Avenue, Suite N

San Diego, CA 92109

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 169 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2