Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03098/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03098-EJD

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE:

KEN JONES,

 Debtor.

 

KEN JONES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

et al., 

 Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03098-EJD 

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Appellant Kenneth F. Jones (“Appellant”) appeals from an order of the bankruptcy court 

dismissing an adversary proceeding he initiated against U.S. Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

and Citibank N.A. (“Respondents”). He now moves this court for (1) a temporary restraining 

order enjoining Respondents from conducting a trustee sale presently scheduled for August 4, 

2015, and (2) an order requiring Respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should 

not issue. See Docket Item No. 12. These requests must be denied. 

1. This motion is governed by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8007. Pursuant 

to that rule, a request for “an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction 

while an appeal is pending” must ordinarily be directed to the bankruptcy court in the first 

Case 5:15-cv-03098-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03098-EJD

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

Northern District of California

instance. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(a)(1)(C). If the request is instead made directly to the court 

where the appeal is pending, the moving party must show “that moving first in the bankruptcy 

court would be impracticable,” or “if a motion was made in the bankruptcy court” must “state the 

court has not yet ruled on the motion, or state that the court has ruled and set out any reasons given 

for the ruling.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(b)(2). 

Here, Appellant has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 8007. If the instant request was 

first made to the bankruptcy court, that court’s ruling or failure to rule on that matter is neither 

referenced nor explained. If the request was not first made to bankruptcy court, Appellant does 

not explain why doing so would have been impracticable. 

2. In any event, Appellant has not demonstrated an entitlement to injunctive relief 

even if compliance with Rule 8007 is excused. While he assigns error to the bankruptcy court’s 

decision - subsequent to the dismissal of his Chapter 13 case - to dismiss the adversary proceeding 

according to Linkway Inv. Co., Inc. v. Olsen (In re Casamont Investors, Ltd.), 196 B.R. 517 

(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996), he does not adequately explain why he is likely to prevail in this appeal, 

why the balance of equities tip in his favor, or why an injunction is in the public interest. 

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The proper legal standard for 

preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.’”). Nor has 

Appellant identified any “serious questions” that tip the balance of hardships sharply in his favor. 

See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). In the absence 

of a sufficient showing, Plaintiff is not entitled to a temporary restraining order or a preliminary 

injunction.

Therefore, Appellant’s request for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause 

for a preliminary injunction (Docket Item No. 12) is DENIED. 

As an additional matter, the court notes the Clerk’s Notice filed on July 21, 2015, notifying 

Case 5:15-cv-03098-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03098-EJD

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

Northern District of California

all parties of the completion of the record on appeal. See Docket Item No. 11. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s opening brief must be filed on or before August 20, 2015. Appellant is advised that 

failure to file a timely opening brief may result in the dismissal of this appeal with prejudice 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 

8003(a)(2) and 8009(g) without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2015 

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03098-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 3