Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00731/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00731-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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 - 08cv731w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA R. METCALF,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO: 08-CV-00731 W (POR)

ORDER (1) DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO STAY

UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION,

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO

DISMISS, AND (3) DENYING

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.

DREXEL LENDING GROUP, et

al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Maria R. Metcalf’s ex parte application for

(1) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) staying an unlawful detainer action currently

pending in federal court; (2) a continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ motions to

dismiss; and (3) leave to amend the Complaint. (Doc. No. 25.) For the reasons stated

below, the Court GRANTS IN-PART and DENIES IN-PART Plaintiff’s motion.

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-00731-W-POR Document 31 Filed 07/03/08 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

1 Plaintiff appears to dispute that she defaulted on the note. (Compl., ¶6.)

- 2 - 08cv731w

I. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

According to the Complaint, on or about February 1, 2007, Plaintiff entered into

a loan agreement with certain Defendants relating to real property located in Chula

Vista, California. (Compl., ¶6.) Plaintiff alleges that the mortgage and note for the

property were never signed (Id.,) and that Defendants “failed and/or refused to provide

Plaintiff with copies of important documents” required by the “the Federal Truth in

Lending Disclosures.” (Id., ¶7.) 

At some point, Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, and Defendant Aurora Loan

Services LLC (“Aurora”) purchased the residence at a foreclosure sale. (Id., ¶6.)1

 Then

on April 22, 2008, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit based on alleged violations of the Truth in

Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. section 1601, et seq., and the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. section 2601, et seq. Plaintiff seeks compensatory

damages and rescission of the mortgage and note. 

Approximately two weeks after this lawsuit was filed, on May 7, 2008, Aurora

filed an unlawful detainer action in the San Diego Superior Court. On May 15, 2008,

Plaintiff (in this case) removed the unlawful detainer action to federal court (the “UD

Action”). (See Doc. No. 1, Case No. 08cv872.) The case is currently assigned to

District Judge William Q. Hayes. Aurora has filed a motion to remand the UD Action

to state court. The hearing on the motion to remand is scheduled for August 11, 2008.

On June 23, 2008, Plaintiff filed the instant ex parte application for a TRO

staying the UD Action and preventing Defendants from evicting Plaintiff and her

family. But absent from Plaintiff’s moving papers is any authority that would allow this

Court to enjoin another pending federal case. And based on the Court’s own research,

it appears that the only time such an injunction might be available is where a class-action

plaintiff is threatened by a “reverse auction” settlement. See e.g. Negrete v. Allianz Life

Insurance Co. of North America, 523 F.3d 1091, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2008). This is

not a class action, and this case does not involve a “reverse auction” settlement. 

Case 3:08-cv-00731-W-POR Document 31 Filed 07/03/08 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 2

For these same reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to stay the hearing on

Aurora’s motion to remand in the UD Action.

- 3 - 08cv731w

Moreover, assuming the Court had authority to enjoin another federal case,

Plaintiff has failed to establish the elements necessary to obtain a TRO. 

The standard for granting a TRO is the same as the standard for entering a

preliminary injunction. Bronco Wine Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 997 F. Supp. 1309,

1313 (E.D. Cal. 1996); Franklin v. Scribner, Civil No. 07-0438 BTM (LSP), 2007 WL

1491100, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2007). Among the elements the moving party must

establish is a likelihood of success on the merits. Owner Operator Indep. Drivers

Ass’n, Inc. v. Swift Transp. Co., 367 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish a probability of success on the merits. 

Plaintiff is suing Defendants for alleged violations of TILA’s disclosure requirements. 

But as Defendants point out in the pending motions to dismiss, the one-year statute of

limitations appears to have run on Plaintiff’s claim. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim for

rescission also appears barred because the foreclosure sale already occurred. See

Saygnarath v. BNC Mortgage, Inc., 2007 WL 1141495 (D.Minn. April 17, 2007);

Williams v. G.M. Mortgage Corp., 2004 WL 3704081 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 18, 2004). For

these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application for a TRO.2

 II. REQUEST TO CONTINUE PENDING MOTIONS

Plaintiff next requests that the Court either deny or continue the hearing on

Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. Plaintiff contends that she has been unable to

respond to the motions because she has been incarcerated, but is scheduled to be

released on July 3, 2008.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that incarceration is not an excuse to fail to

timely respond to a motion or to prosecute a case. To the extent Plaintiff’s

incarceration hindered her ability to file a timely opposition, Plaintiff should have filed a

request for an extension of time before the opposition deadline. 

Case 3:08-cv-00731-W-POR Document 31 Filed 07/03/08 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 3

 Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if she wants to file an amended complaint, she

should do so before the hearing date on Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

- 4 - 08cv731w

Nevertheless, because Plaintiff has not previously requested an extension of time

in this case, the Court will continue the hearing date to August 1, 2008, in order to 

afford Plaintiff another opportunity to file an opposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

opposition must be filed no later than July 18, 2008. There shall be no further

extensions granted with respect to the pending motions. 

III. MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff also seeks an order granting her leave to file an amended complaint. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), however, provides that a “party may amend

its pleading once as a matter of course . . . before being served with a responsive

pleading.” Here, none of the Defendants have filed a responsive pleading. 

Accordingly, at this time, Plaintiff does not need a court order to amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff’s motion is, therefore, DENIED AS MOOT.3

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons the Court GRANTS IN-PART and DENIES INPART Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. No. 25), and HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s request to continue the hearing date on Defendants’ motions to

dismiss is GRANTED. The hearing is continued until August 1, 2008,

and Plaintiff’s opposition is due on or before July 19, 2008. The motions

shall be taken under submission, so there shall be no oral argument

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d.1). There shall be no further

continuances of the hearing on Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-00731-W-POR Document 31 Filed 07/03/08 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

- 5 - 08cv731w

3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 3, 2008

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00731-W-POR Document 31 Filed 07/03/08 Page 5 of 5