Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02200/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02200-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

Kenneth Hughes and Jean Hughes, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc.; BAC

Home Loans Servicing, LP; FKA

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP;

Marin Conveying Corp.; Recontrust

Company, N.A.; and Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2200-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Kenneth and Jean Hughes’ Amended

Complaint, Request for New Judge to Be Appointed to Take Immediate Action to Issue a

Temporary Restraining Order to Postpone Trustee’s Sale (Dkt.#13). 

On November 30, 2009, Plaintiffs lodged the instant petition for a Temporary Restraining

Order (TRO) with the Court. The petition concerns a Trustee’s Sale of Plaintiff’s home that

is scheduled to occur on December 3, 2009, four days after the petition was been filed.

Plaintiff has asked that the Court enjoin the sale.

It appears as though Plaintiff has not provided Defendants with any notice of the instant

TRO petition at this time. Essentially, Plaintiff has requested an ex parte hearing where she

would ask the Court to issue a TRO without notice to the opposing parties. Rule 65(b) of

Case 2:09-cv-02200-MHM Document 15 Filed 12/01/09 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 -

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). In the instant case, Plaintiff’s petition has not

met the demands of Rule 65(b), since her petition has not been accompanied with an affidavit

or a verified complaint that explains why Defendants have not been provided with notice of

this matter, thereby justifying the Court to proceed in their absence.

In addition, based on the limited information that has been submitted to the Court, it is

altogether unclear why Defendants have not been provided with notice of the instant TRO or

why Plaintiff made a last minute request to this Court. Presumably, Plaintiff has for some

time been aware of the pending nature of Thursday’s Foreclosure/Trustee’s Sale. As such,

there is no obvious reason why Plaintiff should not have been able to alert Defendants to the

instant action in time for their representatives to make an appearance before the Court. 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)). The Court is

unwilling to utilize this drastic and exceptional remedy given Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the procedural demands of Rule 65(b) Fed. R. Civ. P. Unfortunately, by waiting until

the last minute, Plaintiffs have left themselves very little time to attempt to provide notice to

Defendants and try to schedule a hearing prior to the sale. However, to the extent that they

are able to do so in the future, the current request is denied without prejudice to being reurged

when the requirements of Rule 65(b) are met. 

/ / / 

Case 2:09-cv-02200-MHM Document 15 Filed 12/01/09 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Request for a Temporary Restraining

Order. (Dkt.#13)

DATED this 1st day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-02200-MHM Document 15 Filed 12/01/09 Page 3 of 3