Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00685/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1640 Truth in Lending

---

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

J. Nichole Italiano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Concord Mortgage Company; EMC

Mortgage Corp.; Citibank, N.A. as Trustee

for Certificate Holders of Bear Stearns

Asset Backed Securities 1 LLC, Asset

Backed-Certificates, Series 2006-HE3; JP

Morgan Chase; Quality Loan Service,

Corp.; Great Southwest Mortgage; Eric

Amorossi; Eric and Heather Amorossi and

DOES 1-100 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-685-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary

Restraining Order, and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.#4). Plaintiff

has requested expedited review.

On April 2, 2010 at or around 3:00 P.M., Plaintiff lodged the instant petition for a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the Court. The petition concerns a foreclosure sale

that appears to have originally been scheduled April 8, 2010. Plaintiff argues that even

though Defendants already allegedly promised to postpone the sale, this promise is

insufficient because notice of actual postponement must be given under A.R.S. § 33-813 or

“[a]t any time the trustee might decide that the sale is no longer on hold.” (Dkt.#4 at 11)

Case 2:10-cv-00685-MHM Document 6 Filed 04/06/10 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 -

It appears as though Plaintiff has not provided Defendants with notice of the instant TRO

petition. Essentially, Plaintiff has requested an ex parte hearing where they would ask the

Court to issue a TRO without notice to the opposing parties. Nowhere in the motion does

Plaintiff indicate that the Defendants have been provided notice of the request. However,

Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any TRO issued without

notice include “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [which] 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). In the instant case, Plaintiff’s

petition has not met the demands of Rule 65(b), since the petition has not been accompanied

with an affidavit or a verified complaint that explains why Defendants have not been

provided with notice of this matter, thereby justifying the Court to proceed in their absence.

In addition, based on the limited information that has been submitted to the Court, it is

altogether unclear why Plaintiff should not have been able to alert Defendants to the instant

action in time for their representatives to make an appearance before the Court. The Ninth

Circuit has cautioned district courts against issuing a TRO without notice to the adverse party,

stating that the “[c]ircumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte order are extremely

limited.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006)

(citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974)). The Court is unwilling

to utilize this drastic and exceptional remedy given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

procedural demands of Rule 65(b) Fed. R. Civ. P.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining

Order (Dkt.#4).

/ / / 

Case 2:10-cv-00685-MHM Document 6 Filed 04/06/10 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 directing Plaintiff to serve notice on the Defendants

regarding the request for a Preliminary Injunction. After Defendants have been served notice

of this request, Plaintiff is directed to notify the Court; a hearing on the Preliminary Injunction

may then be scheduled.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00685-MHM Document 6 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 3