Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00821/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00821-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

- 1 - 11cv821

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YAO ZHAO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv821-MMA (CAB)

vs. NOTICE RE: TENTATIVE RULING

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

A preliminary injunction hearing is currently set in the above-captioned matter for Tuesday,

May 17, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. Having considered the parties’ submissions, and in anticipation of the

hearing, the Court tentatively DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from selling, transferring, disposing of, or otherwise

encumbering Plaintiff’s property, and from evicting or removing Plaintiff from the property located

at 11948 Black Mountain Road # 25 San Diego CA 92129. 

Based on the record currently before the Court, Plaintiff is once again in the same posture as

he was on April 28, 2011 when he was last before the Court seeking identical relief. While the loss

of one’s home may constitute irreparable harm, in this case the harm is not imminent because

Plaintiff currently does not stand to lose his home in a foreclosure sale. See Defendants’ Opposition,

Statham Decl’n. ¶ 7 (May 19, 2011 sale has been taken off calendar and cancelled; no pending sale

date scheduled). The allegation of imminent harm, without an actual demonstration of an immediate

threatened injury, is insufficient to merit injunctive relief. See Assoc. Gen. Contractors of

Case 3:11-cv-00821-MMA-KSC Document 16 Filed 05/16/11 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 - 11cv821

California, Inc. v. Coal. for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, a

court order effectively preventing the possible sale of Plaintiff’s property at some unknown future

time is not appropriate. See, e.g., Capshaw v. Butte Cmty. Bank, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49110

(E.D. Cal. June 10, 2009) (holding that the possibility that a sale date may be set sometime after a

specific date in the future to be too speculative and thus an insufficient basis for either a TRO or a

preliminary injunction); Moore v. Nat’l City Mortg. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4861, 6-7 (D. Haw.

Jan. 21, 2010) (in a case where the defendant bank indicated that it had postponed the non-judicial

foreclosure action for at least 60 days, the Court held that because no sale was scheduled plaintiff’s

motion for injunctive relief had to be denied, as there was no potential for any immediate,

irreparable harm). 

The preliminary injunction hearing remains on calendar and appearances are

required. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge 

Case 3:11-cv-00821-MMA-KSC Document 16 Filed 05/16/11 Page 2 of 2