Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02061/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02061-0/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

Tari Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

American Home Mortgage Services, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2061-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Tari Baker’s Motion for Temporary

Injunction (doc. 2). Plaintiff asserts in her motion that the court should enter this

preliminary injunction without notice to defendant because plaintiff will suffer immediate

and irreparable injury, loss or damage if the order is not granted before defendant can be

heard. 

On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Court and also filed a

Motion for Temporary Injunction. It appears from the complaint that the Plaintiff

obtained a mortgage from Defendant by signing a promissory note for $344,000. It also

appears that the loan was secured by a deed of trust on Plaintiff’s property at 29453 N.

51st Street, Cave Creek, AZ 85331. Plaintiff alleges various grievances against

Defendant, including that she was fraudulently induced to enter the contract with

Defendant, that she was charged “false fees” by Defendant, that Defendant’s lien on the

Case 2:10-cv-02061-JWS Document 4 Filed 09/30/10 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 -

property is invalid, that Defendant has engaged in fraud in connection with her loan, that

Defendant was unjustly enriched, that defendant acted negligently and in breach of its

fiduciary duty along with numerous other claims. Plaintiff states this loan was

unaffordable and she notes that the Defendant scheduled a foreclosure sale of for August

14, 2010. Plaintiff wants the Court to enjoin the Defendant from foreclosing on

Petitioner’s property. Other than provide a date for which the foreclosure sale was

scheduled, which passed almost seven weeks ago, Plaintiff has provided no further

information about the sale proceedings – whether the sale took place on August 14th, or

precisely what action Plaintiff wants the Court to enjoin. 

It is clear, however, that Plaintiff has not provided Defendant with notice of the

instant TRO petition. Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any

TRO issued without notice include “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint

[which] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to

the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,”and that “the movant's

attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should

not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)–(B). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned

district courts against issuing a TRO without notice to the adverse party, stating that the

“[c]ircumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte order are extremely limited.” 

Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974)). 

In the instant case, Plaintiff has not met the demands of Rule 65(b) since her

petition was not accompanied by an affidavit or a verified complaint explaining why

Defendants have not been provided with notice of this matter and a certified writing

explaining their efforts to give notice and why it should not be required. Furthermore, the

urgency of Plaintiff’s TRO is not apparent from its contents as Plaintiff only provided the

date for which the foreclosure sale was scheduled – a date which passed almost seven

weeks ago - without providing any further information about whether the sale occurred,

or the status of foreclosure proceedings. Accordingly, the Court cannot determine from

Case 2:10-cv-02061-JWS Document 4 Filed 09/30/10 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 -

her papers if requiring Plaintiff to comply with Rule 65(b) will cause her prejudice. 

Therefore, before the Court will consider Plaintiff’s request for relief, Plaintiff must

notify Defendants and provide proof of that notice to this Court. If Plaintiff believes that

such notice should not be required, she must explain to this Court, in compliance with

Rule 65(b), the reasons for that belief.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02061-JWS Document 4 Filed 09/30/10 Page 3 of 3