Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03098/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03098-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03098-EJD

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE:

KEN JONES,

 Debtor.

KEN JONES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

 Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03098-EJD 

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 21

Appellant Ken Jones (“Appellant”) initiated this action after the bankruptcy court 

dismissed an adversary proceeding he filed against three banks, namely U.S. Bank, N.A., Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., and Citibank N.A. (“Respondents”), concerning real property located in 

Lockwood, California. For the second time in less than a month, he seeks injunctive relief from 

this court, specifically a (1) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining Respondents from 

conducting a trustee sale of the Lockwood property, presently scheduled for August 20, 2015, and 

(2) an order requiring Respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. 

See Docket Item No. 21. This request fares no better than its predecessor. Accordingly, it will be 

denied.

Case 5:15-cv-03098-EJD Document 27 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03098-EJD

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

Northern District of California

1. The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as that for the issuance of preliminary 

injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 

(1977). A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a 

clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a 

party to demonstrate ‘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.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 

(9th Cir. 2009). A preliminary injunction may also issue if “serious questions going to the merits 

were raised and the balance of the hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” thereby allowing 

preservation of the status quo where complex legal questions require further inspection or 

deliberation. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010).

2. Appellant’s prior request failed for two reasons. See Docket Item No. 17. First, 

Appellant did not demonstrate compliance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8007, 

which generally requires that requests for injunctive relief pending appeal be made to the 

bankruptcy court in the first instance, or if the request is instead made directly to the appellate 

court, the moving party must explain why moving in the bankruptcy court would have been 

impracticable. 

Second, and in any event, the request failed on its merits because Appellant did not 

adequately explain why he was likely to prevail, why the balance of equities tipped in his favor, or 

why an injunction preventing the foreclosure was in the public interest.

3. While Appellant has since resolved the former issue by providing a ruling from the 

bankruptcy court denying the TRO request, the latter problem persists. As this court previously 

observed, Appellant appeals from a bankruptcy court order dismissing his adversary action after 

the underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed. Such a decision to decline ongoing jurisdiction is 

subject to discretionary review by this court. See Linkway Inv. Co., Inc. v. Olsen (In re Casamont 

Case 5:15-cv-03098-EJD Document 27 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03098-EJD

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

Northern District of California

Investors, Ltd.), 196 B.R. 517, 521 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996). But in his briefing, Appellant makes 

no argument under the applicable standard and, to that end, fails to explain why the dismissal 

order constitutes an abuse of discretion. Although Appellant makes significant effort to support 

the merits of his claims against Respondents, those issues are ancillary to the limited question 

presented by this appeal. 

Accordingly, this court again concludes Appellant has not demonstrated a likelihood of 

success on the merits or presented any “serious questions.” Nor has Appellant adequately 

explained why the equities favor him or why a TRO under these circumstances is in the public 

interest. On that basis, Appellant’s request for a temporary restraining order and order to show 

cause for a preliminary injunction (Docket Item No. 21) is DENIED. The motion to appear by 

telephone (Docket Item No. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03098-EJD Document 27 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 3