Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01757/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01757-0/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 MOTION FOR

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, alleging violations of the Truth

in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),

26 U.S.C. § 2605. Accompanying the complaint was a motion for a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”), requesting the court enjoin a non-judicial foresclosure sale of his property set for October

2, 2008. Proof of service accompanying Plaintiff’s filing showed service was initiated by first-class

mail on September 24, 2008.

The Ninth Circuit has not articulated a specific test for temporary restraining

orders. Ali v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 1206, 1208 (N.D. Cal. 1996). This court

therefore uses the same tests applicable for preliminary injunctions. See Superior

Servs., Inc. v. Dalton, 851 F. Supp. 381, 384 (S.D. Cal. 1994). Preliminary injunctive relief is

available if the party meets one of two tests: (1) a combination of probable success and the

Case 3:08-cv-01757-JM-JMA Document 4 Filed 09/25/08 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

- 2 - 08cv1757

possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) the party raises serious questions and the balance of hardship

tips in its favor. Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987).

“These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of

irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Id. Under either formulation,

however, the party must demonstrate a “fair chance of success on the merits" and a "significant

threat of irreparable injury.” Id.

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for his claims for a

fundamental reason - the claims are time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations. 

First, Plaintiff’s claims relating to improper disclosures under TILA are subject to the one

year statute of limitations period of 15 U.S.C. §1640(e) (any claim under this provision must be

made “within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.”). The complaint alleges

Defendants violated TILA’s disclosure rules by, among other things, failing to provide a copy of

the signed completed loan documents. Compl. ¶ 13-14. While the court makes no findings with

respect to the timeliness of these damage-related claims, it appears that some or all of the claims

arising from the alleged disclosure deficiencies may be time barred as the alleged violations would

have occurred at the time the loan closed on August 15, 2005.

Likewise, any TILA claim for rescission must be brought within three years of

consummation of the transaction or prior to “the sale of the property, whichever occurs first.” 15

U.S.C. §1635(f). Plaintiff’s right to rescind the transaction expired on August 15, 2008, three

years from the date he re-financed the loan. Compl. ¶ 12.

Second, Plaintiff’s RESPA claims appear to be time-barred under the applicable one-year

statute of limitations. 12 U.S.C. § 2614. Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to establish the

requisite likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-01757-JM-JMA Document 4 Filed 09/25/08 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 - 08cv1757

In addition, service has not yet been effected on Defendants. In light of the above,

Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO is hereby DENIED without prejudice to further application based on

a stronger showing under the Arcamuzi test as well as a showing of personal service effected on

the defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01757-JM-JMA Document 4 Filed 09/25/08 Page 3 of 3