Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01507/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01507-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332fc Diversity - Foreclosure

---

1

3:17-cv-01507-BEN

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANAR WASITO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; 

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING 

LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01507-BEN

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff Janar Wasito, proceeding pro se, filed an ex parte 

motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to postpone the July 28, 2017 

foreclosure sale on his residence. He also submitted a request for judicial notice to 

support his ex parte motion. The Court has reviewed and considered both filings.

The Court is familiar with the allegations in this case, as they are substantially the 

same as his allegations in Case No. 17-cv-1279. In that case, on July 6, 2017, the Court 

granted Plaintiff a temporary restraining order to delay the foreclosure sale on his house. 

The Court issued the TRO to preserve the status quo until a hearing could be held. The 

Court held a preliminary injunction hearing on July 13, 2017. After careful consideration 

of the parties’ arguments and the governing law, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a 

Case 3:17-cv-01507-BEN-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-01507-BEN

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

preliminary injunction. The Court held that Plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of 

success on the merits, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that the public 

interest favors enjoining the foreclosure. The same reasons lead this Court to conclude 

that a temporary restraining order should not issue in this case. 

I. Background

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Specialized Loan 

Servicing LLC, the previous and current servicers of his loan, respectively, breached a 

duty of care in processing and reviewing his applications for a loan modification. 

Plaintiff’s theory is that Wells Fargo improperly denied him a loan modification in 2013. 

Because he was allegedly improperly denied a loan modification in September 2013, he 

believes he overpaid his monthly mortgage payments until May 2015. At the preliminary 

injunction hearing, Plaintiff conceded he has not made his monthly mortgage payments 

since May 2015. He brings claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional 

distress.

II. Legal Standard

A temporary restraining order is extraordinary relief, the underlying purpose of 

which is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held. 

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 

70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). For a TRO to issue, the movant must 

show either (1) a combination of likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of 

irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions going to the merits are raised and the 

balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the moving party. Jones v. H.S.B.C. (USA), 

844 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1099 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Immigrant Assistance Project of Los 

Angeles Cnty. Fed’n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002). “[T]hese two 

formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of 

irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Dep’t of Parks & 

Recreation of Cal. v. Bazaar del Mundo Inc., 448 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2006). If the 

movant shows no chance of success, injunctive relief should not issue. Id. at 1124.

Case 3:17-cv-01507-BEN-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-01507-BEN

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

III. Discussion

Some California courts impose a duty of care on a lender or loan servicer in 

reviewing a loan for a potential modification. Alvarez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 

L.P., 228 Cal. App. 4th 941 (2014). But see Marques v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 16-

cv-03973, 2016 WL 5942329, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2016) (discussing split in 

authority regarding whether loan servicers owe borrowers a duty of care in processing 

modification applications and declining to impose a duty of care). However, even if this 

Court finds such a duty, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious 

questions going to the merits of his claims. The Court heard Plaintiff’s arguments 

regarding the allegedly negligent 2013 loan modification denial at the preliminary 

injunction hearing and considered the evidence offered. Plaintiff appealed the denial of 

that modification, and his appeal was denied. (See Decl. of Specialized Loan Servicing, 

LLC ¶ 11, Case No. 17-cv-1279, Doc. No. 23). He also applied for and was denied other 

loan modifications over the years. (See id. ¶¶ 18, 30-32). Plaintiff fails to explain why 

these reviews were not adequate to correct the alleged error in the 2013 modification 

denial. 

Plaintiff has not made a mortgage payment in over two years. He has not made a 

credible offer of tender. He has not demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious 

questions going to the merits, nor has he shown why it would be equitable to postpone 

the foreclosure sale again.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01507-BEN-RBB Document 10 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3