Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00517/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00517-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Olga Cervantes, an; (2) Carlos Almedarez;

(3) Arturo Maximo, individually and on

behalf of a class of similarly situated

individuals,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

(1) Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; 

(2) Merscorp, Inc.;

(3) Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc.;

(4) Federal Home Loan Mortgage

Corporation;

(5) Federal National Mortgage

Association;

(6) GMAC Mortgage, LLC; 

(7) J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA;

(8) Citimortgage, Inc.;

(9) HSBC Mortgage Corporation, USA;

(10) AIG United Guaranty Corporation;

(11) Wells Fargo Bank, NA;

(12) Bank of America, NA;

(13) GE Money Bank;

(14) PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.;

(15) National City Corporation;

(16) National City Bank;

(17) National City Mortgage;

(18) Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc;

(19) First Franklin Financial Corporation;

(20) LaSalle Bank , NA;

(21) Tiffany & Bosco, PA, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-517-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Case 2:09-cv-00517-JAT Document 185 Filed 06/10/09 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Arturo Maximo’s Second Motion for

Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 43), Defendants

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.,

First Franklin Financial Corporation, and LaSalle Bank, N.A.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to

Strike Supplemental Expert Opinion (Doc. # 164), Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File SurReply (Doc. # 166), and the Parties’ Stipulation to Extend Date for Filing Joint Pre-Hearing

Statement and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding the Preliminary

Injunction (Doc. # 184). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Maximo’s motion and,

thus, denies Defendants’ motions and the Parties’ stipulation as moot.

BACKGROUND

 In October 2006, Maximo purchased a single-family home located in Phoenix,

Arizona, funded in part by a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. In approximately

August 2008, Maximo was unable to continue making payments on the promissory note. A

Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder on December 23,

2008. A public auction was to be held on March 24, 2009, concerning the sale of Maximo’s

residence. The public auction was rescheduled for April 24, 2009. On April 13, Maximo

filed the instant motion, seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to

enjoin the sale of Maximo’s residence.

On April 22, Maximo filed with this Court a Notice of Defendant’s Cancellation of

Trustee’s Sale and Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing on Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 56).

In his notice, Maximo related that the public auction scheduled for April 24 had been

canceled. In light of this cancellation, Maximo stated that it was “unnecessary for this court

to conduct a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order.” (Doc. # 56 at

pp. 2-3.) Nevertheless, Maximo requested that the Court schedule a hearing on his motion

for a preliminary injunction because of the “ongoing uncertainty regarding when Defendant

Tiffany & Bosco will again notice the sale of Plaintiff Maximo’s residence.” (Doc. # 56 at

p. 3.)

///

Case 2:09-cv-00517-JAT Document 185 Filed 06/10/09 Page 2 of 5
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

 The “alternative” standard Maximo suggests states that a preliminary injunction may

be granted “if the plaintiff demonstrates either a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.” Doc. # 43 at p. 8 (quoting Freecycle Network,

Inc., v. Oey, 505 F.3d 898, 902 (9th C. 2007)). In American Trucking, consistent with the

Supreme Court in Winter, the Court of Appeals explicitly overruled this lesser standard. Am.

Trucking, Inc., 559 F.3d at 1052 (“To the extent that our cases have suggested a lesser

standard, they are no longer controlling, or even viable.”).

- 3 -

ANALYSIS

Preliminary Injunction Standard

In his motion for preliminary injunction, Maximo sets forth two standards the Court

may apply in evaluating whether to grant or deny Maximo’s request for a preliminary

injunction. The law upon which Maximo relies, however, predates the most recent

pronouncement by our Supreme Court in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, __

U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008), concerning the proper preliminary injunction standard. In

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046 (9th C. 2009),

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had the opportunity to discuss and apply Winter in the

context of the proper preliminary injunction standard. The Court of Appeals’ interpretation

of Winter confirms that the proper preliminary injunction standard is the standard Maximo

refers to as the “traditional” standard. Namely, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction

must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable

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

that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 559 F.3d at 1052 (quoting

Winter, __ U.S. at __, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The Court of Appeals applied this very standard,

and this Court follows suit.1

Absence of Irreparable Harm

Even if the Court assumes that Maximo is likely to succeed on the merits–a finding

this Court is not making in this Order–Maximo has failed to carry his burden of

Case 2:09-cv-00517-JAT Document 185 Filed 06/10/09 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

demonstrating that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not grant his

motion for a preliminary injunction.

In his motion, Maximo seeks to prohibit the various Defendants “from initiating or

advancing any foreclosure, sale, or interference with the peaceful use, enjoyment, possession

and residence” of Maximo. (Doc. # 43 at p. 3.) However, as Maximo relates in his Notice

of Defendant’s Cancellation of Trustee’s Sale (Doc. # 56), the public auction of Maximo’s

residence slated for April 24 was canceled. Nevertheless, Maximo asserts that the threat of

foreclosure and the eviction of his family from the residence is enough, standing alone, to

support the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The mere future threat of foreclosure and

eviction, however, fails to satisfy Maximo’s burden that he will suffer irreparable harm if the

Court fails to grant Maximo the preliminary injunction he seeks. See Winters, __ U.S. at __,

129 S.Ct. at 375-76 (“Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of

irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an

extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is

entitled to such relief.”).

Moreover, as Maximo recognizes, under Arizona law, if Defendants decide to

reinitiate sale proceedings of Maximo’s residence, the time frame between the noticing of

the sale and the actual sale must be a minimum of ninety days. ARIZ.REV. STAT.ANN. § 33-

807 (D) (2007) (“The power of sale of trust property conferred upon the trustee shall not be

exercised before the ninety-first day after the date of the recording of the notice of the sale.

The sale shall not be set for a Saturday or legal holiday.”). According to the record before

this Court, Maximo’s residence, to date, has not been re-noticed for sale. An allotment of

a minimum of ninety days is a sufficient time frame for Maximo to seek this Court’s

protection via a preliminary injunction should Defendants reinitiate sale proceedings. As a

result of the cancellation of the April 24 public auction, the Court fails to see how Maximo

will suffer any harm by the Court’s refusal to enter the injunction Maximo seeks, much less

harm that is irreparable.

///

Case 2:09-cv-00517-JAT Document 185 Filed 06/10/09 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

CONCLUSION

Having considered Maximo’s motion, the responses to his motion, and Maximo’s

replies in support of his motion, the Court finds that Maximo failed to show that he is likely

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Therefore, the Court denies

Maximo’s request for preliminary relief and, as such, the Court vacates the hearing currently

set for Friday, June 19, 2009.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Arturo Maximo’s Second Motion for Preliminary

Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 43) is denied without prejudice and that

Plaintiff may again file for injunctive relief, if necessary, if and when Plaintiff’s residence

is re-noticed for sale.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank

of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc., First Franklin Financial Corporation, and

LaSalle Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Expert Opinion (Doc. # 164) is denied

as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties’ Stipulation to Extend Date for Filing

Joint Pre-Hearing Statement and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Regarding the Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 184) is denied as moot and that the deadline

to file the Parties’ Joint Pre-Hearing Statement and Proposed Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law Regarding the Preliminary Injunction is vacated.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED vacating the hearing set for Friday, June 19, 2009, at

9:00 a.m.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00517-JAT Document 185 Filed 06/10/09 Page 5 of 5