Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01075/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01075-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CATHERINE MCALLISTER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-CV-1075-PHX-GMS

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining

Order (“TRO”) of Plaintiff Catherine McAllister. (Dkt. # 4.) In her Petition, Plaintiff

requests that this Court temporarily enjoin a trustee’s sale of property located at 4241 W.

Monte Cristo Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85053. The trustee’s sale is scheduled for 12:00 P.M.,

May 22, 2009. In support of her Application for a TRO, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint

to which Plaintiff has attached both the Notice of Trustee’s Sale and the Qualified Written

Request she sent to Defendant Indymac Federal Bank pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiff additionally has

filed the certification of her attorney that notice of the Complaint and Application were given

to Defendant. (Dkt. # 4 Pt. 2.) On May 21, 2009, the Court conducted a hearing on the

matter. (See Dkt. # 7.) Although Defendant did not appear, Plaintiff’s counsel verified to

the Court that timely notice was given Defendant of the scheduled hearing. 

Case 2:09-cv-01075-GMS Document 8 Filed 05/21/09 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 -

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 authorizes the Court to issue a preliminary

injunction or TRO upon a proper showing. The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as

that for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. The Mind’s Eye

Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2007). To prevail on a request for a

preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show either “(a) probable success on the merits

combined with the possibility of irreparable injury or (b) that [it] has raised serious questions

going to the merits, and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in [its] favor.” Bernhardt

v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit has explained

that “these two alternatives represent ‘extremes of a single continuum,’ rather than two

separate tests. Thus, the greater the relative hardship to the moving party, the less probability

of success must be shown.” Immigrant Assistant Project of Los Angeles County Fed’n of

Labor (AFLCIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 

 Here, after review of the Verified Complaint and supporting documentation, the

Court finds that Plaintiff has raised serious questions going to the merits of her Complaint

and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in her favor. Plaintiff has provided verified

statements and evidence supporting the allegations that Defendant has violated its statutory

obligations under RESPA, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 2605. While the Court recognizes the

inconvenience imposed on Defendant in issuing this TRO, should this Court refuse to grant

the TRO, Plaintiff would face potentially irreparable injury by the imminent sale of her

primary residence. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary

Restraining Order (Dkt. # 4) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant and its appointed Trustee are enjoined

for a period of ten (10) days from the date and time of the issuance of this Order from

conducting or pursuing in any way a trustee’s sale of Plaintiff’s property located at 4241 W.

Monte Cristo Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85053.

Case 2:09-cv-01075-GMS Document 8 Filed 05/21/09 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is binding on Defendant; Defendant’s

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any person acting in concert or

participation with anyone previously described and having actual notice hereof.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no bond is required of Plaintiff for this TRO

Order.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009, 4:15 P.M.

Case 2:09-cv-01075-GMS Document 8 Filed 05/21/09 Page 3 of 3