Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01532/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01532-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAMRAN IRSHAD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ARGENT MORTGAGE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 10-01532 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION

FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff Kamran Irshad moves ex parte for a temporary

restraining order prohibiting Defendants from conducting a trustee

sale of his property located at 126 Red Cedar Lane, Union City,

California on April 12, 2010. 

A temporary restraining order may be issued without providing

the opposing party an opportunity to be heard only if “specific

facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to

the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). “The standard for issuance of a

temporary restraining order is the same as that for issuance of a

preliminary injunction.” Burgess v. Forbes, 2009 WL 416843, at *2

(N.D. Cal.). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party

must “establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he

Case 4:10-cv-01532-CW Document 9 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.

Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). 

Defendant Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. (CWRC), the

foreclosing trustee, recorded a Notice of Default against the said

property on September 28, 2009. Comp. ¶ 21. Plaintiff received a

Notice of Sale by CWRC on January 7, 2010. Id. ¶ 22. However,

Plaintiff waited until three days before the trustee sale to file

an ex parte application for an order to halt the sale. The timing

of this application weighs against his request. Further, although

the balance of the harm tips toward Plaintiff, he has not presented

the requisite showing of meritoriousness required for the Court to

issue an injunction. Plaintiff’s request for immediate ex parte

relief is therefore DENIED. If Plaintiff’s request does not become

moot by the trustee sale, Plaintiff may file a regularly noticed

motion for a preliminary injunction. See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/15/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01532-CW Document 9 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2