Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00685/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00685-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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

J. Nichole Italiano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Concord Mortgage Company; EMC

Mortgage Corp.; Citibank, N.A. as Trustee

for Certificate Holders of Bear Stearns

Asset Backed Securities 1 LLC, Asset

Backed-Certificates, Series 2006-HE3; JP

Morgan Chase; Quality Loan Service,

Corp.; Great Southwest Mortgage; Eric

Amorossi; Eric and Heather Amorossi and

DOES 1-100 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-685-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary

Restraining Order, and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.#7). Plaintiff

has requested expedited review.

On April 2, 2010 at or around 3:00 P.M., Plaintiff lodged a prior petition for an Ex Parte

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (Dkt.#4), concerning a foreclosure sale that appears to

have originally been scheduled for April 8, 2010. Because Plaintiff failed to explain why the

Defendants had not been provided with notice of the Ex Parte TRO, the Court denied this

petition, explaining that the Court was “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.” (Dkt.#6)

Case 2:10-cv-00685-MHM Document 10 Filed 04/08/10 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 -

In response, on April 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a handwritten document entitled “Proof of

Service Re: Notice of Motion and TRO” in which she explained that she emailed copies of

the TRO to Attorney Michael Curran, whom she asserts is opposing counsel, representing

Citibank, EMC, and Chase, the foreclosing parties in this case. However, none of the

Defendants have an attorney of record, nor has Mr. Curran entered an appearance. It is

altogether unclear why Plaintiff waited until the last minute to submit her request to the

Court. The exhibits attached to her petition suggest that she knew about the scheduled sale

by March 19, 2010 at the latest. 

Nevertheless, the Court will address the substance of Plaintiff’s TRO, given her apparent

good-faith efforts to provide notice to Defendants. Rule 65 does not specify the exact

requirements for notice; it merely requires the party seeking the TRO to specify the efforts

that have been undertaken to notify the opposing party and the reasons why no further efforts

at notification before issuance of the order are justified. Rule 65(b)(2). 

To obtain a TRO, Plaintiff “must establish that [she] is likely to succeed on the merits, that

[she] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance

of equities tips in [her] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

Natural Res. Def. Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Plaintiff’s motion consists mainly of

a request that the Court order Defendants produce the “original note” showing their

entitlement to the property at issue. There is not a substantial likelihood Plaintiff will

succeed on this theory. Diessner v. Mortgage Elec. Registrations Sys., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184,

1187 (D. Ariz. 2009) (“[D]istrict courts have routinely held that Plaintiff’s ‘show me the

note’ argument lacks merit.”). In addition, Plaintiff’s papers suggest that Defendants have

already offered to postpone the foreclosure sale: “defendants have agreed, by e-mail and

telephone via their legal counsel Mr. Michael Curran to possibly ‘put on hold’ the

foreclosure proceedings pending their investigation into giving a loan modification, but Court

order is the only way to be certain that no foreclosure will take place during the pendency

of this litigation,” (Dkt.#8 at 9) and “reliance upon oral or even email agreements to ‘put on

hold’ a sale without a recorded notice of withdrawal or cancellation by the trustee or the

trustee’s agent is unwise. At any time the trustee might decide that the sale is no longer ‘on

Case 2:10-cv-00685-MHM Document 10 Filed 04/08/10 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 -

hold.’” (Dkt.#8 at 11) Thus, the alleged harm appears relatively speculative in nature, and

is far from sufficient to justify a TRO. 

Given that Plaintiff has not established an entitlement to a temporary restraining order, her

petition is hereby denied (Dkt.#8). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Second Application for a Temporary

Restraining Order (Dkt.#8). However, the Court will direct the Defendants to notify both

Plaintiff and the Court at least ten days in advance of any foreclosure in light of the above.

DATED this 8th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00685-MHM Document 10 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 3