Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01757/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01757-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 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

- 1 - 08cv1757

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARITO DELOS REYES QUINTOS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1757 JM (POR)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

DENIAL OF TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

vs.

DECISION ONE MORTGAGE COMPANY,

LLC; MORTGAGE MATTERS, INC.;

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN, INC.;

RECONTRUST, INC.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint on September 24, 2008 (Doc. No. 1), alleging violations

of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. and corresponding regulations), the Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA; 26 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), and state law claims for breach

of fiduciary duty and breach of covenant. Accompanying the complaint was a motion for a temporary

restraining order (“TRO”; Doc. No. 2), requesting the court enjoin a non-judicial foresclosure sale of

his property set for October 2, 2008. The motion was denied by court order on September 25, 2008.

(Doc. No. 4.) At 4:02 p.m. on October 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Request for Reconsideration on the

TRO issue (Doc. No. 7) attempting to prevent the foreclosure sale.

Reconsideration of a court’s pre-judgment order will not be granted “unless the District Court

is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening

change in the controlling law” since the issuance of the court order. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate

Case 3:08-cv-01757-JM-JMA Document 9 Filed 10/03/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 08cv1757

of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Although the Plaintiff does provide new information to the court, there is no indication it was

discovered since the court’s order was entered. (Doc. No. 7, Ex. A.) The order denying the TRO was

not in clear error, based on the facts presented (even taking the newly provided information into

account) and the relevant, applicable law. Plaintiff cites to one unpublished opinion from the New

York state court, Wells Fargo Bank v. Reyes, 2008 WL 2466257 (N.Y. Sup. 2008), and another from

the an Ohio federal district court, In re Foreclosure Cases, Case No. 07cv2282 (E.D. Ohio, Oct. 31,

2007), but fails to demonstrate why these rulings are applicable to the current dispute or controlling

over this court. (Doc. No. 2, Ex. A.) Finally, Plaintiff presents no evidence the controlling law has

changed since her TRO was denied.

In addition, according to the documents provided to the court, the foreclosure sale took place

October 2, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., making a TRO moot. (Mot. for TRO, Not. of Trustee’s Sale.) 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the court’s denial of a TRO

(Doc. No. 7) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01757-JM-JMA Document 9 Filed 10/03/08 Page 2 of 2