Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01472/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Procoro Garduno,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

National Bank of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1472 PHX DGC

ORDER

On June 21, 2010, Plaintiff Procoro Garduno filed the pending action in Maricopa

County Superior Court. Doc. 1-1 at 2-44. On that same day, Maricopa County Superior

Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order, which issued without

notice pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). Doc. 1-2 at 1-4. Plaintiff also

requested a preliminary injunction, and Superior Court set a hearing on the preliminary

injunction request for July 29, 2010. Doc. 1-8 at 2.

On July 13, 2010, before Superior Court ruled on the preliminary injunction request,

Defendants removed the case to this Court on the ground that Plaintiff’s complaint raised

federal questions. Doc. 1. On August 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand in which

he claims that his complaint does not arise under federal law. Doc. 7.

On August 9, 2010, Defendant National Bank of Arizona filed a motion to dissolve

the temporary restraining order that was issued by Superior Court. Doc. 8. Defendant made

its motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(4), which states that “[o]n 2

days’ notice to the party who obtained the [temporary restraining order] without notice . . .

the adverse party may appear and move to dissolve or modify the order.” The Rule further

states that “[t]he court must then hear and decide the motion as promptly as justice requires.”

Case 2:10-cv-01472-DGC Document 13 Filed 08/19/10 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 -

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(4).

The Court finds that justice requires prompt briefing and a prompt hearing, as the

temporary restraining order has been in place for nearly two months despite being issued

without notice. See Doc. 1-2 at 1-4. Plaintiff shall file a response to the motion to dissolve

(Doc. 8) no later than August 23, 2010. Defendant National Bank of Arizona shall file a

reply no later than August 27, 2010.

The Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction over this matter before it makes

the determination of whether the temporary restraining order should be dissolved. As a

result, Defendants shall file a response to the motion to remand (Doc. 7) by no later than

August 23, 2010. Plaintiff shall file a reply no later than August 27, 2010.

The Court will hold a hearing on the motion to dissolve the temporary restraining

order on September 7, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. Should the Court determine that remand of this

case is appropriate, the Court will vacate the hearing by separate order.

DATED this 19th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01472-DGC Document 13 Filed 08/19/10 Page 2 of 2