Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00177/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00177-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REYNALDO T. AMODO, 

an individual,

NO. CIV. S-10-177 MCE/DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION,

dba NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE, a

corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

This case concerns the pending foreclosure of plaintiff’s

home and plaintiff’s eviction from this home. Plaintiff has filed

an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”).

Because plaintiff is unable to obtain injunctive relief for the

violations of federal law described in the motion, plaintiff’s

motion is denied.

I. STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 provides authority to issue either

preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders.

Ordinarily, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must

Case 2:10-cv-00177-MCE -DAD Document 6 Filed 01/22/10 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

2

demonstrate that it is “[1] likely to succeed on the merits, [2]

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his

favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am.

Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th

Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 129 S. Ct.

365, 374 (2008)). The requirements for a temporary restraining

order are largely the same. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D.

Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Wright and

Miller, 11A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2951 (2d ed.).

Courts apply a more stringent standard where an adverse party

has not received notice of a motion for a TRO. Specifically, courts

may only “issue a temporary restraining order without written or

oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney if: [¶] (A)

specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show

that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result

to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition;

and [¶] (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts

made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks a restraining order enjoining defendant’s

foreclosure of his home loan. The balance of hardships tips sharply

in support of plaintiff because he will lose his home if an

injunction does not issue. In contrast, defendants will suffer no

serious hardship as their security in the home will remain.

Case 2:10-cv-00177-MCE -DAD Document 6 Filed 01/22/10 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

3

Similarly, plaintiff faces the irreparable harm of foreclosure of

his home. Because both of these elements tip sharply in plaintiff’s

favor, plaintiff must only establish a serious question as to his

likelihood of success for the court to issue a TRO.

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to such an order

because (1) he is entitled to relief under the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 , et seq.;

and (2) he is entitled to relief in the form of rescission under

the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq. Because

plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief under either of

these statutes, he has not established any significant likelihood

of success on the merits. Thus, his motion for a TRO is denied.

A. RESPA

Plaintiff’s RESPA claim is based upon his lender’s failure to

provide plaintiff with a “Good Faith Estimate” as required by

RESPA. 24 C.F.R. § 3500.7. “A loan originator that violates the

requirements of this section shall be deemed to have violated

section 5 of RESPA.” Id. Section 5 of RESPA only affords the

following types of relief for individual plaintiffs:

(A) any actual damages to the borrower as a result of

the failure; and

(B) any additional damages, as the court may allow, in

the case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance

with the requirements of this section, in an amount

not to exceed $1,000. 

12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1). While plaintiff may be entitled to relief

based on defendants failure to provide a good faith estimate, such

failure cannot be remedied through injunctive relief, including

Case 2:10-cv-00177-MCE -DAD Document 6 Filed 01/22/10 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

4

enjoining foreclosure of plaintiff’s home. Moreover, plaintiff’s

claim under RESPA is not affected by foreclosure of his home.

Specifically, plaintiff still has a cause of action under RESPA for

failure to provide a good faith estimate at loan origination after

his home is foreclosed upon. Thus, plaintiff’s RESPA claim does not

entitle plaintiff for a TRO enjoining the foreclosure of his home

because he is not likely to succeed on the merits of this claim

insofar as he seeks injunctive relief.

B. TILA Rescission

Plaintiff also argues that foreclosure of his home should be

enjoined because he is entitled to rescission under TILA. While a

rescission claim may warrant the granting of a TRO, plaintiff’s own

admissions bar him from rescission under TILA. Specifically,

Regulation Z, which implements TILA, states that, “The right to

rescind does not apply to . . . a residential mortgage

transaction.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.15(f). Regulation Z defines a

residential mortgage transaction as, “a transaction in which a

mortgage, deed of trust, purchase money security interest arising

under an installment sales contract, or equivalent consensual

security interest is created or retained in the consumer's

principal dwelling to finance the acquisition or initial

construction of that dwelling.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(a)(24). Plaintiff

admits that his TILA claim arises out of the original loan to

acquire his home. Thus, plaintiff’s TILA claim does not entitle

plaintiff for a TRO enjoining the foreclosure of his home because

he is not likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.

Case 2:10-cv-00177-MCE -DAD Document 6 Filed 01/22/10 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

5

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a

temporary restraining order, Doc. No. 2, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00177-MCE -DAD Document 6 Filed 01/22/10 Page 5 of 5