Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00418/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00418-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

07cv418

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOYCE A. BLAND; MICHAEL BLAND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CARONE FAMILY TRUST, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-418-L(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

LIFTING OF THE INJUNCTION

ORDER [doc. #43] 

Plaintiffs filed this action on March 6, 2007, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending

Act (“TILA”) and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (“HOEPA”). Plaintiffs

sought and were granted a TRO on March 19, 2007, to prevent a foreclosure sale of their home

 by defendants. [doc. #21] The Court subsequently granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction.

(Order filed April 10, 2007 [doc. #34])

With the assistance of Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, the parties entered into a

settlement agreement as follows:

1. Plaintiffs would pay defendant $340,000 of which $5,000 would come from the

release of plaintiffs’ bond posted with the Court and $335,000 from the refinancing of

their home.

2. The loan was to be completed within 60 days (June 18, 2007), with one extension

of up to 30 days (July 18, 2007) in which to distribute the money to defendant.

3. If plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining the loan, all deeds and liens held by defendant

subject to this case would be released.

Case 3:07-cv-00418-L-RBB Document 55 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 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

1 Because of the further delay in obtaining repayment, plaintiffs were ordered to pay interest for the thirty-day extension of time, at a rate of 15% per annum ($4,500) on the balance

to be paid to defendants. 

2 07cv418

4. If plaintiffs failed to obtain the loan or to distribute the amount within the time

period set forth, plaintiffs’ case would be dismissed with prejudice and defendant would

be authorized to proceed with the foreclosure of the property.

(Motion for relief from injunction, Exh. 1)

In accordance with the settlement agreement, plaintiffs released the bond amount, $5,000,

to defendants, and defendants released their liens on plaintiffs’ other properties in order to

facilitate short sales of those properties. Defendants received from plaintiffs a letter from

Countrywide (a mortgage lender), dated June 18, 2007, that indicated plaintiffs’ loan had been

approved. June 18, 2007, however, was the date the loan transaction was to have been

completed. Further assurances that the loan was going to go through and be funded were not

given; therefore, the parties again met with Magistrate Judge Brooks on July 12, 2007. Plaintiffs

advised the court and defendants that they would provide additional information concerning the

status of the loan.

Defendants filed the present ex parte request for relief from the injunction on July 18,

2007. In this request, defendants seek to have the injunction lifted so that plaintiffs’ home can

be foreclosed. On July 23, 2007, the Court held a hearing on defendants’ ex parte request. At

that hearing, plaintiffs were granted a thirty-day extension of time in which to obtain funds for

the repayment of the $335,000 they owed to defendants under their settlement agreement.1

Defendants’ ex parte request for relief from the injunction was held in abeyance until the thirtyday extension expired. The Court indicated at the hearing that it would grant defendants’ ex

parte request if plaintiffs had not provided the money due defendants within the thirty-day

extension of time.

On August 22, 2007, defendants filed a Notice [doc. #54] which pointed out that they had

not received the money due, nor had they received any further proof of the progress of plaintiffs’

loan. (Notice at 2-3). The Court has not received a response from plaintiffs to defendants’

Notice or to defendants’ original ex parte application for relief from the injunction.

Case 3:07-cv-00418-L-RBB Document 55 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 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

3 07cv418

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ ex parte request for relief from injunction in accordance with the

settlement agreement is GRANTED. The injunction is dissolved with the filing of this Order. 

2. Plaintiffs shall file a notice of dismissal of this action with prejudice within ten

days of the filing of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00418-L-RBB Document 55 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 3