Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03347/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN FREITAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA N.A. and DOES

1–60,

Defendants. /

No. C 19-03347 WHA

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

In July 2018, pro se plaintiff, John Freitas commenced an action naming twelve

defendants, including Bank of America, N.A. (Case No. 18-cv-03993 WHA, Dkt. No. 1). 

Plaintiff’s claims included: (1) unfair and deceptive consumer practices with respect to loan

servicing, foreclosure processing, and loan origination; (2) violation of the Financial Institutions

Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989; (3) declaratory judgment; (4) bankruptcy

misconduct; (5) quiet title; (6) slander of title; (7) conspiracy to slander title; (8) violation of

Section 2923.5 of the California Civil Code; and (9) violation of Section 17200 of the

California Business and Professions Code. Also in July 2018, plaintiff filed an application for a

temporary restraining order to halt the foreclosure of his residence. The temporary restraining

order was denied. The case was ultimately dismissed for a failure to prosecute (id. at Dkt. Nos.

1, 2, 21, 30). 

Case 3:19-cv-03347-WHA Document 14 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff, again proceeding pro se, has now commenced the instant action against Bank

of America, and has again filed a motion for a temporary restraining order following the

foreclosure sale of the same property (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2). 

A plaintiff seeking provisional relief must show that he is likely to succeed on the

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter

v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiff raises essentially the same

arguments in the instant motion for a temporary restraining order as he did in the now-dismissed

case. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits for the same reasons

stated in the July 2018 order denying plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order. 

Plaintiff has also not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm as the foreclosure sale

has already occurred. 

The instant motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED. No hearing will be held. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-03347-WHA Document 14 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 2