Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01693/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01693-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 42:1471 Declaratory &amp; Injunctive Relief - Foreclosure Sale

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Vicky S. Benson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Daren W. Jantz; Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, 

Inc., et al., 

 Defendants. 

NO. CV-12-1693-PHX-FJM 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary 

Restraining Order (Doc. 3). For the reasons discussed below, the application for TRO is 

denied. 

 On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff Vicky S. Benson filed her Complaint in this action 

and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2). She does not appear to 

have served the Complaint or to have otherwise provided notice to Defendants of her suit. 

(See Docs. 1, 3). Also on August 9, Plaintiff moved for an ex parte TRO, arguing that she 

“will be wrongfully removed from her single family home without the benefit of a 

hearing.” (Doc. 3 at 3). 

Case 2:12-cv-01693-FJM Document 5 Filed 08/09/12 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides: 

The court may issue a temporary restraining order without 

written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only 

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) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to provide any writing stating 

the reasons why notice to Defendants of her TRO application should not be required nor 

does it appear that she has provided Defendants with notice of her request for a hearing. 

The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO without prejudice to her filing 

it again in compliance with the rule. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for 

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 

 Dated this 9th day of August, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01693-FJM Document 5 Filed 08/09/12 Page 2 of 2