Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00107/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00107-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CHRISTOPHER ESQUIVEL; CARMEN

ESQUIVEL, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-CV-0107-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On December 24, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Plaintiffs Christopher and Carmen Esquivel filed

a Petition for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

and Order to Show Cause. (See Case No. 08cv2350 Dkt. # 1.) In their Petition, Plaintiffs

requested that this Court temporarily enjoin a trustee’s sale of property located at 102 W.

Shamrock Street, Gilbert, Arizona. The trustee’s sale was scheduled for December 29, 2008,

the first business day following the Christmas holiday. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Petition

for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and because the Petition was

moot given that the scheduled date of the trustee’s sale had past prior to the Court’s order.

(Case No. 08cv2350 Dkt. # 4.) 

On January 16, 2009, Plaintiffs Christopher and Carmen Esquivel filed a second

Petition for TRO, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Order to Show Cause seeking

to temporarily enjoin the trustee’s sale of the same property. (Dkt. # 1.) The trustee’s sale,

previously scheduled for December 29, 2008, apparently was postponed and was reCase 2:09-cv-00107-GMS Document 6 Filed 01/26/09 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 -

scheduled for 10:00 A.M., January 20, 2009 – prior to the time that Plaintiffs’ request was

presented to this division. In this instance, due to the Martin Luther King holiday, the

trustee’s sale was scheduled for the morning of the next business day following the date

Plaintiffs’ second Petition was filed. Notably, despite claiming that “time is of the essence”

in both Petitions (Case No. 08cv2350 Dkt. # 1 at 9; Dkt. # 2 at 12), Plaintiffs waited until the

last minute to file the Petitions with the Court, did not requested a hearing, and made no other

attempt to contact or alert the Court to the TRO petitions prior to the scheduled dates of the

trustee’s sale. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 authorizes the Court to issue a preliminary

injunction or TRO upon a proper showing. The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as

that for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. The Mind’s Eye

Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2007). To prevail on a request for a

preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show either “(a) probable success on the merits

combined with the possibility of irreparable injury or (b) that [it] has raised serious questions

going to the merits, and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in [its] favor.” Bernhardt

v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit has explained

that “these two alternatives represent ‘extremes of a single continuum,’ rather than two

separate tests. Thus, the greater the relative hardship to the moving party, the less probability

of success must be shown.” Immigrant Assistant Project of Los Angeles County Fed’n of

Labor (AFLCIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 

In addition to the requisite showing, a preliminary injunction may issue “only on

notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). A TRO may be granted without notice

to the adverse party:

only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by

affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant

before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in

opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court

in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the

notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should

not be required. 

Case 2:09-cv-00107-GMS Document 6 Filed 01/26/09 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 -

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

Here, despite claiming to have sent copies of the Petition to Defendants by certified

mail on the 12th of January, Plaintiffs present no evidence suggesting that they have noticed

Defendants of their request for a TRO and preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ counsel

likewise has not certified in writing the efforts made to notice Defendants or provided any

reasons why notice should not be required. Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to submit a verified

complaint, affidavits, or other admissible evidence supporting any chance of success on the

merits or any injury, loss, or damage. Plaintiffs’ Petition is not filed under oath or penalty

of perjury. The Petition refers to a verified complaint (Dkt. # 2 at 3, 7) and attachments (Id.

at 7), but the complaint filed in the matter is not verified and no attachments were filed with

Plaintiffs’ Petition.

Because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that injunctive relief is proper, and

because the TRO request is apparently moot:

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Petition for Temporary Restraining Order,

Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Order to Show Cause (Dkt. # 2) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause why he has

not violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) (granting

courts the power to order an attorney to show cause “why conduct specifically described in

the order has not violated Rule 11(b)”). This is the second time that counsel has filed with

the Court a flawed motion for a TRO at the last minute. Counsel is directed to file a

memorandum with the Court by January 29, 2009. Additionally, counsel is directed to

appear on January 30, 2009, at 11:30 a.m. to further discuss the matter with the Court. 

DATED this 26th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00107-GMS Document 6 Filed 01/26/09 Page 3 of 3