Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02441/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02441-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 

Adam C. Cytron, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PHH Mortgage Corp. et. Al, 

Defendants.

No. CV16-2441-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Yesterday, at 4:30 p.m., Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to block a trustee’s 

sale of his property scheduled for today. Doc. 2. Plaintiff’s motion asked the Court to 

grant a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) by 5:00 p.m. yesterday. Id. The Court was 

in a jury trial yesterday, and did not see Plaintiff’s motion until this morning. For the 

reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. 

 To obtain preliminary injunctive relief such as a TRO, a plaintiff must show that 

he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that injunctive relief is 

in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). The test 

includes a sliding scale. If the plaintiff shows that the balance of hardships will tip 

sharply in his favor, he need not make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the 

merits – the existence of serious questions will suffice. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. 

Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 6 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 2
‐ 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 

 Plaintiff’s motion does not address any of these factors. Plaintiff argues that he 

has canceled his mortgage, that Defendants have unclean hands, and that the Court can 

stay proceedings related to the trustee’s sale, among other arguments. Plaintiff does not 

clearly identify the legal claims upon which his TRO request is based. He asserts that he 

has “overwhelming evidence” of Defendants’ unclean hands, but the attachments to his 

motion are difficult to decipher. They appear to be a combination of excerpts from 

“infransen Blog” and emails related to this case, but Plaintiff attaches no declaration or 

affidavit. He does make reference to his complaint, but it is not sworn. Doc. 1. Thus, in 

addition to failing to address the requirements for a TRO, Plaintiff has failed to provide 

proper supporting evidence. 

 Plaintiff also asks for a TRO without notice, but he has failed to address the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Nor does he provide the affidavit 

or verified complaint required by that rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order without notice (Doc. 2) is 

denied. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appear in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is 

improperly filed and is therefore denied.

 Dated this 22nd day of July, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 6 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 2