Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01964/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01964-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 08-1964

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 5/21/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GENE RUGRODEN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE BANK OF PARK RAPIDS, JACK

SMYTHE, JON SMYTHE, CITY OF PARK

RAPIDS, MN, NORTHBEACH ASSOCIATION

et. Al., CHUCK HAGEN and DOES 1-100,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 08-1964

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 1

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER 

Plaintiff Gene Rugroden (“Rugroden”), a resident of Santa Clara County, California, 

seeks a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining the sale of real property, located in

Hubbard County, Minnesota by State Bank of Park Rapids (“State Bank”). For the reasons set

forth below, the application will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 15, 2008, Rugroden filed a complaint in this court alleging the following. 

Case 5:08-cv-01964-JF Document 17 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Although Rugroden alleges that the Bank took possession and control he also alleges that 2

Hubbard County Sheriff deputies and others harassed, intimidated and interfered with his

business and property.

2

Case No. C 08-1964

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

During June of 1999, Rugroden purchased from State Bank property located in Hubbard County,

Minnesota. In 2000, Rugroden learned that the Contract for Deed Property (“the Deed”)

description which he signed was different from the description he was shown during earlier

negotiations. When it came time to renew the Deed in 2002, Rugroden refused to sign it unless it

was revised to conform with the original description. State Bank refused to make the requested

revisions. State Bank then refused to accept Rugroden’s payments and took possession and

control of the land. 

2

Rugroden alleges that he was not allowed to appear telephonically in subsequent court

proceedings involving this property and further that State Bank did not personally serve a

cancellation of contract for deed notice. Rugroden filed an application for a TRO in this Court

on May 20, 2008, arguing that the sale scheduled for May 22, 2008, should be enjoined because

his due process rights have been violated. 

III. DISCUSSION

The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction. 

Brown Jordan International, Inc. v. Mind’s Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp.2d 1152, 1154 (D.

Hawaii 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320,

1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show

either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the

existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in the

movant’s favor. Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1401-02 (9th Cir. 1998); Apple Computer, Inc.

v. Formula Int’l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984). These formulations represent two

points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the

probability of success decreases. Roe, 134 F.3d at 1402. 

The thrust of Rugroden’s argument is the sale should be enjoined because the Minnesota

court, the sheriff and the court deputies conspired against him to violate his due process rights. 

Case 5:08-cv-01964-JF Document 17 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 08-1964

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

Rugroden does not identify any specific conduct as the basis of this claim. Instead, he seeks to

restrain the sale until he can provide specific allegations. Rugroden explains:

Plaintiff knows that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review state

court rulings, however in this case once Plaintiff knows how due process was

denied, he may then go to state court in Minnesota and request any actions or

rulings be vacated. Until discovery, Plaintiff will not know exactly the depth and

breadth of what exists or why. Plaintiff is not asking the Court to determine the

validity of any sate court orders with this request, but to stay the . . . sheriff’s sale

until the . . . case can be heard.

Because Rugorden has failed to articulate a cognizable basis for his claim the Court will deny his

application for a TRO.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for a

temporary restraining order is DENIED.

DATED: May 21, 2008.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-01964-JF Document 17 Filed 05/21/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 08-1964

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Case 5:08-cv-01964-JF Document 17 Filed 05/21/08 Page 4 of 4