Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01070/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy and Valerie Faulkner, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a Bank of 

New York, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV11-1070-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 

 On May 27, 2011, Plaintiffs pro se filed a complaint challenging Defendants’ 

conduct with regard to the loan for Plaintiffs’ property (Doc. 1), and also filed a notice of 

lis pendens against the subject property (Doc. 3). Plaintiffs’ complaint sought a variety 

of relief, including a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Doc. 1. Plaintiffs did not 

move for a TRO until June 27, 2011.1

 Doc. 8. From the TRO papers it appears that a 

trustee sale was noticed for May 31, 2011 (Doc. 8-4 at 2), that it was postponed (id. at 31-

33), and that a forcible detainer trial in the Estrella Mountain Justice Court was scheduled 

for June 28, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. (Doc. 8 at 28). 

 To obtain a TRO and a preliminary injunction Plaintiffs must show that they are 

likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

 

1 Plaintiffs’ affidavit states the motion was mailed to the courthouse on June 17, 

2011 (Doc. 8 at 22), but the filing date of record in the Court’s Electronic Filing System is June 27, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01070-DGC Document 10 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 3
‐ 2 ‐ 

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 

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that 

injunctive relief is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 

129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The test includes a sliding scale. If Plaintiffs show that the 

balance of hardships will tip sharply in their favor, they need not make a strong showing 

of likelihood of success on the merits – the existence of serious questions will suffice. 

Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th Cir. 2010). Serious 

questions exist when a plaintiff shows a “‘fair chance of success on the merits.’” 

Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc) 

(quoting Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Coston, 773 F.2d 1513, 1517 (9th Cir. 1985)). In an 

effort to satisfy these requirements Plaintiffs make a number of arguments, which the 

Court will address individually. 

First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants trespassed on their property without consent 

and broke into their home through the back door on May 31, 2011. Doc. 8 at 1. 

Although the law does not condone trespass, Plaintiffs fail to allege or show that trespass 

is likely to recur. Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants’ representatives “are now 

monitoring the property by parking in front of the Plaintiffs’ home” (Doc. 8 at 8:17-19) 

appears to show Defendants are keeping their distance, and Plaintiffs do not explain how 

parking on a public road constitutes trespass on Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs also fail to 

show how a past incident of trespass by an agent of one or more defendants entitles 

Plaintiffs to enjoin the forcible detainer proceeding or to unwind the trustee sale if the 

sale already occurred. They have, therefore, not shown a likelihood of success on the 

merits or the existence of serious questions on this ground for emergency injunctive 

relief. 

Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants wrongfully proceeded with a foreclosure 

despite Plaintiffs having sent them a cease and desist notice, written requests under 

RESPA, a complaint of possible fraud, a dispute of debt, and a request to validate debt. 

Doc. 8 at 2. Plaintiffs have cited no law that the mere notice of these issues to 

Defendants required Defendants to stop the foreclosure. Although Plaintiffs characterize 

Case 2:11-cv-01070-DGC Document 10 Filed 07/05/11 Page 2 of 3
‐ 3 ‐ 

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 

these notices as “legally binding” (Doc. 8 at 19:32), Plaintiffs do not allege the notices 

were court orders. To the extent Plaintiffs argue that had the trustee properly investigated 

the allegations in the notices the trustee would have concluded the sale would be 

improper, Plaintiffs do not present affirmative evidence from which the Court may 

conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim. Nor have 

Plaintiffs explained why they waited until days before the forcible detainer trial to seek a 

TRO, or why they did not file the TRO motion in person thereby avoiding the delay of 

mailing. In light of this delay and Plaintiffs’ failure to show other viable equitable 

considerations, the Court concludes that the balance of equities does not tip sharply in 

Plaintiffs’ favor. Thus, even serious questions would not justify injunctive relief. 

Third, Plaintiffs argue that emergency injunctive relief is warranted because they 

are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment. See Doc. 8 at 2. But Plaintiffs 

have not identified the state action that will deprive them of due process and have not 

meaningfully developed their due process arguments. Therefore, the Court has no basis 

on which to find that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits or even have a fair 

chance of success. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to emergency 

injunctive relief because they have not shown the balance of equities tips sharply in their 

favor, as discussed above. 

 Plaintiffs’ request for emergency injunctive relief will be denied. To the extent 

Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction (Doc. 8 at 2:1-3), the request is premature 

until the merits of this case have been resolved through summary judgment or trial. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ petition for injunctive relief (Doc. 8) is denied

as stated above. 

 Dated this 1st day of July, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01070-DGC Document 10 Filed 07/05/11 Page 3 of 3