Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08114/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08114-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 - Petition for Removal: Securities Fraud

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Bernice MacKenzie, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-8114-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

On July 25, 2011, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank NA and Wells Fargo Home 

Mortgage Inc. moved to dismiss. Doc. 6. On July 28, Plaintiff pro se Bernice 

MacKenzie filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Doc. 8. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, on the same date. Doc. 10. The amendment was 

timely and no leave of court was required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The motion to 

dismiss will be denied as moot because it is based on a complaint that has since been 

amended. 

With regard to the TRO motion, to qualify for temporary injunctive relief the 

movant must show that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to suffer 

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in 

her favor, and that injunctive relief is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The test includes a sliding scale. If the 

plaintiff shows that the balance of hardships will tip sharply in her favor, she need not 

make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits – the existence of serious 

Case 3:11-cv-08114-DGC Document 13 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 2
‐ 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 

questions will suffice. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th 

Cir. 2010). Serious questions exist when a plaintiff shows a “‘fair chance of success on 

the merits.’” Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(en banc) (quoting Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Coston, 773 F.2d 1513, 1517 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

In this case, Plaintiff’s motion does not raise serious questions on most claims: it 

cites California law without showing California law applies; it cites Arizona law without 

showing that the Arizona law claims have a basis in fact; and it cites the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act, Truth in Lending Act, Treasury Regulation Z, and the Home 

Owners Equity Protection Act without showing that those statutes would be a viable basis 

for injunctive relief. The motion also cites to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”). To the extent the motion raises serious questions regarding Defendants’ 

FDCPA compliance, Plaintiff has not shown that the FDCPA violations would entitle her 

to injunctive relief against eviction rather than merely to monetary damages, see 15 

U.S.C. § 1692k. The motion makes other arguments regarding the legal capacity of 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to foreclose against Plaintiff’s property, 

arguments that have been largely rejected by this Court. E.g., Silving v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, NA, __ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2011 WL 2669246 (D. Ariz. July 7, 2011). Because 

Plaintiff has failed to show she is entitled to emergency injunctive relief, the motion for a 

TRO will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is denied as moot. 

2. The TRO motion (Doc. 8) is denied. 

 Dated this 10th day of August, 2011. 

Case 3:11-cv-08114-DGC Document 13 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 2