Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01079/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01079-0/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

08cv1079

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTRELLA COSTALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICA’S SERVICING CO., LOAN

CENTER CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1079-L(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EX PARTE TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

On June 18, 2008, Plaintiff Estrella Costales, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. and a Motion for Ex

parte Temporary Restraining Order, seeking an order to enjoin a foreclosure. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case, because the action arises

under TILA, a federal statute. For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order (“TRO”) is DENIED.

A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief, including a TRO, must show either (1) a

combination of probable 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 the

moving party's favor. Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.

1999). “These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required

degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Roe v. Anderson,

Case 3:08-cv-01079-L-JMA Document 6 Filed 06/19/08 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 08cv1079

134 F.3d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, the moving party must show the threatened

irreparable harm is imminent. Sardi's Rest. Corp. v. Sardi, 755 F.2d 719, 725 (9th Cir. 1985);

Caribbean Marine Servs., Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although Plaintiff asserts she wishes to enjoin a foreclosure, she does not state when the

foreclosure is to take place or attach any notices or correspondence pertaining to the foreclosure. 

With respect to the irreparable harm element, it is not clear whether the property to be foreclosed

upon is Plaintiff’s primary residence. Plaintiff’s motion also does not include a memorandum of

points and authorities, see Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(1), or any other discussion of the applicable

law to enable the court to determine the probability she will succeed on the merits or whether

she has raised serious questions going to the merits of the dispute. 

In addition to the substantive deficiencies, the motion suffers from procedural

deficiencies. The motion is not signed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires every

motion to be signed by the attorney or party proceeding pro se. Furthermore, Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 65(b) generally requires notice to the adverse party. Plaintiff’s certificate of

service does not state the manner of service, and is therefore insufficient to show that service

was made as required by Rule 5(b). Plaintiff’s motion does not meet the requirements of Rule

65(b)(1) for issuing a TRO without notice.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes

to renew her motion, she must remedy the deficiencies noted above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 19, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01079-L-JMA Document 6 Filed 06/19/08 Page 2 of 2