Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02551/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02551-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 12:2605 RESPA: Servicing of Mortgage Loans

---

1

18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB

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

Gentleman Marshall as AGENT obo His 

Granted Federal Franchise MARSHALL 

PFEIFFER Known as #222703407-

g38455581,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS/ CORPORATION 

SERVICE COMPANY; ALLY 

FINANCIAL INC/ CORPORATION 

SERVICE COMPANY; FEDERAL 

HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION/AGENT; THE BANK 

OF NEW YORK MELLON 

CORPORATION/AGENT,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER

[ECF No. 4.]

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Marshall Pfeiffer’s (“Plaintiff’s”) emergency ex 

parte application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 4.) Having 

considered the Plaintiff’s application, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the

application for a TRO. 

//

Case 3:18-cv-02551-GPC-JLB Document 11 Filed 11/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB

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

BACKGROUND

In 2008, Plaintiff executed a promissory note to Homecomings Financial LLC for a 

mortgage loan of $475,000, secured by a Deed of Trust on his property located at 4384 

Mississippi Street, El Cajon, California. As a result of a series of complicated transfers 

involving the defendants referenced in the caption of this case (“defendants”), that loan 

came to be in the possession of defendant Qualified Loan Service Corporation (“Qualified 

Loan”). 

According to Plaintiff, Quality Loan filed a Notice of Default against his property 

on June 28, 2018. Thereafter, on October 8, 2018, Quality Loan filed a Notice of Trustee’s 

Sale as to Plaintiff’s property with the San Diego County Recorder. That Notice stated that 

Plaintiff was in default, and that a public auction as to his property would be held on 

November 9, 2018, at 9:00AM, to address Plaintiff’s debts. 

On November 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the instant case against 

defendants, alleging common law fraud, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, and noncompliance with California Commercial Code. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s 

complaint also sought declaratory and injunctive relief with regards to the impending 

foreclosure sale. Although it is not perfectly clear from Plaintiff’s moving papers, it 

appears that he contends that defendants have improperly documented or notified him of 

the various transfers of his loan. As a result, Plaintiff claims he has no way to verify the 

legitimacy of the claimed note holder—i.e., Qualified Loan. He insists that because he was 

“under no[] obligation to pay anything to an unverifiable Party making an unverifiable 

Claim,” the notice of default and resulting notice of sale are improper. (ECF No. 1-2, at 

12.)

On November 9, 2018—i.e., the day of the scheduled foreclosure sale—Plaintiff 

presented the Court with the present ex parte application for a TRO. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff 

seeks to restrain Quality Loan and New Penn Financial d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage 

Servicing LLC, another named defendant, from “engaging in any Sale, Auction or 

Foreclosure of Movant’s Home known as 4382-4384 Mississippi Street.” (Id. at 1). The 

Case 3:18-cv-02551-GPC-JLB Document 11 Filed 11/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB

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

request fails under the analysis applicable to ex parte requests and also does not meet the 

requirements for a TRO. As such, the Court denies the application. 

ANALYSIS

A. Ex Parte Applications

To justify ex parte relief, a party must show two things: “First, the evidence must 

show that the moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying 

motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures. Second, it must be 

established that the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex 

parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Mission Power 

Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). 

Plaintiff has alleged that, absent the TRO, he will suffer irreparable damage in the 

form of losing his home and becoming homeless as a result. (ECF No. 1, at 5; ECF No. 

4, at 2.) The first factor is met.

The second looks to the “creation of the crisis,” and asks whether “parties . . . have 

failed to present requests when they should have.” Id. at 493 (quoting In re 

Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989)); accord AF Holdings LLC 

v. Doe, No. 12CV01525 LAB RBB, 2012 WL 5304998, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2012). 

Plaintiff cannot satisfy this second requirement. 

Although the Court notes that Plaintiff proceeds pro se, Plaintiff is not without 

fault in creating the claimed emergency that led to his application for a TRO. Indeed, the 

claimed emergency did not arise as a result of his excusable neglect. As his complaint 

makes clear, Plaintiff was put on notice of a potential foreclosure action as early as June 

28, 2018, when Quality Loan notified him of his default. That potential crystalized into 

an actual notice of sale on October 8, 2018, when Qualified Loan recorded the upcoming 

public auction. In light of this chronology, Plaintiff could have sought injunctive relief

much earlier than when he did. There was a gap of approximately one month during 

which time Plaintiff might have petitioned the Court for appropriate action. Plaintiff 

provides no justification for failing to raise the issue at an earlier juncture and cannot 

Case 3:18-cv-02551-GPC-JLB Document 11 Filed 11/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB

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

satisfy the second requirement for ex parte relief. 

B. Temporary Restraining Orders 

The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to the standard for issuing a preliminary 

injunction and requires that the party seeking relief 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.” Homeowners Against the Unfair Initiative v. Calif. Building 

Industry Assoc., 2006 WL 5003362, *2, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97023, *4 (S.D.Cal. Jan. 

26, 2006) (citing Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. County of Fed’n of Labor v. 

INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002)). The underlying purpose of a TRO is to preserve 

the status quo and prevent irreparable harm before a preliminary injunction hearing may 

be held. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 

415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides that a court may issue a TRO without 

notice to the adverse party in limited circumstances where “specific facts in an affidavit or 

a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage 

will result to the movant . . . .” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The movant must also certify 

in writing any efforts made to give notice of the TRO and the reasons why it should not be 

required. FED.R.CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Although the restrictions imposed are stringent, they 

“reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken 

before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a 

dispute.” Granny Goose, 415 U.S. at 438–39. 

Here, the Court need not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s request for a TRO because 

he has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff’s application 

certifies that he mailed a copy of his emergency motion for a TRO to both New Penn 

Financial and Quality Loan. (ECF No. 4, at 4.) However, given that the notice of the TRO

was mailed on the day as the Court was asked to act upon the request for the same, and in 

the absence of an indication of the delivery speed of the mailings, the Court finds that there 

Case 3:18-cv-02551-GPC-JLB Document 11 Filed 11/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB

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

was no notice provided to the defendants, and no adequate justification for its absence. As 

explained previously, the alleged violations by New Penn Financial and Quality Loan were 

known to Plaintiff as early as June 28, 2018 and no later than October 8, 2018. The Court 

espies no explanation in Plaintiff’s filings for this delay, nor any reason to excuse it. 

Nor is Plaintiff’s statement—that he had emailed the motion for a TRO to three email 

addresses—sufficient to demonstrate notice. (ECF No. 4, at 2.) One of the emails is 

addressed to “lossmitigation@shellpointmtg.com,” which the Court surmises might 

correspond to someone at Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing/New Penn Financial. (Id.) The 

other emails listed are addressed to “info@mccarthyholthus.com” and 

“legalresolution@mccarthyholthus.com.” (Id.) Plaintiff has not endeavored to explain who 

monitors these emails, how they are related to the TRO, and whether emailing the motion 

for TRO to those addresses would be reasonably calculated to reach the defendants at issue. 

Without this information, the Court is not prepared to rule that notice has been given. 

The Court finds that the record does not support a finding that a TRO must issue 

immediately without notice and an opportunity to respond being afforded to the nonmoving parties.1

 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a clear showing 

that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a TRO. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. The Court 

therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s application. (ECF No. 4.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2018

 

1 Moreover, the Court queries whether the application to enjoin the auction is moot. The Notice of 

Trustee’s Sale advised that the time of the public auction would be November 9, 2018, at 9:00AM. If 

the auction proceeded according to plan, then a TRO, submitted for the first time after the Opening 

Hours of the Court on that same day, would more than likely be moot. 

Case 3:18-cv-02551-GPC-JLB Document 11 Filed 11/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5