Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01546/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01546-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 10cv1546-WQH-WMc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN M. PARK; MICHELLE PARK,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv1546-WQH-WMc

ORDER

vs.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION (TTEE); CREDIT

SUISSE FINANCIAL CORPORATION;

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORPORATION; OLD REPUBLIC

TITLE COMPANY; MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS – “MERS” (BENEFICIARY);

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING;

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the (1) Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 45);

(2) Motion for Extension of Time and for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 47);

(3) Motion for Extension of Time to File Surreply in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 55); (4) Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 56); (5) Motion for Preliminary

Injunction Against Fraudulent Conveyance of Title (ECF No. 61); (6) Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint to Add New Defendants (ECF No. 71); (7) Motion for Leave to

File Excess Pages in Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 72);

(8) Motion to Strike the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 73);

(9) Amended Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint to Add New Defendants

(ECF No. 82); and (10) Motion to Strike Late Filed Reply Brief (ECF No. 84).

Case 3:10-cv-01546-WQH-WMC Document 86 Filed 04/13/11 Page 1 of 6
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 - 10cv1546-WQH-WMc

BACKGROUND

On July 26, 2010, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a

Complaint. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges fourteen causes of action arising from a

mortgage transaction in the amount of $840,000, related to Plaintiffs’ purchase of real property

located at 7421-7423 Draper Avenue, La Jolla, California.

On November 23, 2010, all remaining Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 45).

On December 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time and for Leave

to File an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiffs stated that they sought to “expand

the scope of the original Complaint to encompass new causes of action pursuant to the

wrongful default of Plaintiffs’ property that occurred since the Complaint was filed, and new

facts and evidence recently discovered pursuant to a recently commissioned forensic loan audit

by a qualified predatory lending fraud analyst.” Id. at 3.

On January 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief, seeking an order

halting the sale of Plaintiffs’ property scheduled for January 4, 2011. (ECF No. 56).

On January 10, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against

Fraudulent Conveyance of Title. (ECF No. 61). 

On February 1, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint to Add New Defendants. (ECF No. 71).

On February 14, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 73).

On March 18, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint to Add New Defendants. (ECF No. 82).

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs move for “a preliminary and permanent injunction and for a related order to

set aside the January 4, [2011] illegal public auction sale and fraudulent conveyance of the

Case 3:10-cv-01546-WQH-WMC Document 86 Filed 04/13/11 Page 2 of 6
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 - 10cv1546-WQH-WMc

subject property title ... and for further injunctive relief against any further foreclosure against

the subject property by Defendants ... until all of Plaintiffs’ issues have been fairly and

equitably adjudicated by this Court.” (ECF No. 61 at 2). In support of the motion, Plaintiffs

submit an affidavit of Plaintiff Sean M. Park, and a variety of exhibits. (ECF Nos. 61-2, 63,

75).

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not

be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek

v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotation omitted). To obtain preliminary injunctive

relief, a movant must show “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 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. NRDC, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.

Ct. 365, 374 (2008); see also Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052

(9th Cir. 2009). 

At a minimum, “the moving party must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable

injury.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation

omitted). “[E]conomic injury alone does not support a finding of irreparable harm, because

such injury can be remedied by a damage award.” Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television

& Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted); see also

Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (“Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of

money, time and energy necessarily expended are not enough” to constitute irreparable injury)

(quotation omitted).

The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiffs reside in the property which is the subject

of this litigation. In filings in three related cases pending in this Court, Plaintiffs state that the

properties are investment properties. See S.D. Cal. Civil Case Nos. 11cv477, 11cv478,

11cv479. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that, if they were to ultimately prevail in this

litigation, monetary damages would not adequately compensate them for the loss of their

investment properties. Cf. Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 471 (9th

Cir. 1984) (reversing the grant of an injunction of a commercial property lease because, inter

Case 3:10-cv-01546-WQH-WMC Document 86 Filed 04/13/11 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 - 10cv1546-WQH-WMc

alia, “Goldie’s harm would be easily calculable and compensable in damages”); Breinholt v.

Popular Warehouse Lender, No. 10cv587, 2010 WL 4922341, at *1 (D. Idaho, Nov. 29, 2010)

(denying preliminary injunction because “the record suggests that the Tanglerose residence is

an investment property” and “[t]hus, Plaintiffs do not face the loss of their home but rather

only face financial injury, which is compensable in large part, if not entirely, in damages”)

(quotation omitted). The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.

If the moving party fails to meet the “minimum showing” of a likelihood of irreparable

injury, a court “need not decide whether [the movant] is likely to succeed on the merits.”

Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.

II. Amended Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a second amended complaint to add “new causes of

action related to a wrongful foreclosure sale” and to add new parties “whose names were

previously unknown to Plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 82-1 at 2). 

Defendants oppose the motion and move to strike the motion on the basis that the Court

has not yet ruled on Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint,

and “because the amendment is interposed solely for delay in obtaining a ruling on

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to increase Defendants’ expenses in responding to the

amended pleading.” (ECF No. 73 at 6).

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be freely

given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.

2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court

offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant a motion to

amend under Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason–such as undue delay, bad faith

or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies

by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by

virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.–the leave

Case 3:10-cv-01546-WQH-WMC Document 86 Filed 04/13/11 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 - 10cv1546-WQH-WMc

sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.

2004) (citing Forman factors). “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this

circuit and others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that

carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd.

v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). “The party opposing amendment bears the

burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. “Absent prejudice, or a

strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule

15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

After consideration of the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that Defendants

have failed to adequately demonstrate prejudice, and that the Foman factors do not outweigh

the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend” at this stage in the

proceedings. Id. In light of the three pending motions for leave to amend the Complaint,

Plaintiffs’ most recent motion for leave to amend is granted (ECF No. 82), and the two earlierfiled motions are denied as moot (ECF Nos. 47, 71). The Motion to Strike the Motion for

Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is denied. (ECF No. 73).

III. Motion to Dismiss

Once filed, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint in its entirety. See

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997). Because Plaintiffs have been

granted leave to file a second amended complaint, the Motion to Dismiss, which addresses the

original Complaint, is denied as moot. (ECF No. 45).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED

(ECF No. 61); the Amended Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is

GRANTED (ECF No. 82); the Motion to Strike Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint is DENIED (ECF No. 73); and all remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot

(ECF Nos. 45, 47, 55, 56, 71, 72, 84).

No later than TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file the

Case 3:10-cv-01546-WQH-WMC Document 86 Filed 04/13/11 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 - 10cv1546-WQH-WMc

Second Amended Complaint, which will be the operative pleading in this action. The Second

Amended Complaint must be complete in itself and may not incorporate by reference any prior

version of the Complaint or other filing.

DATED: April 13, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01546-WQH-WMC Document 86 Filed 04/13/11 Page 6 of 6