Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02439/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02439-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

NO. C 10-00805 RS

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 

*E-Filed 06/07/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

JASON RIVERA, an individual; and 

MIKALA RIVERA, an individual, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-02439 RS 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiffs Jason and Mikala Rivera filed their Complaint on June 2, 2010 alleging, among 

others, violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq (“RESPA”) 

and the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq (“TILA”) and its implementing regulations, 

12 C.F.R. § 226 et seq (“Regulations Z”). Plaintiffs now apply for a temporary restraining order 

(“TRO”) enjoining defendants Recontrust Company, N.A. (“Reconstruct”) and BAC Home Loans 

Servicing, LP (“BAC”) from conducting a trustee’s sale of plaintiff’s property at 153 Smith Street, 

Alamo, California, 94507, which Plaintiffs represent is scheduled to take place on June 9, 2010 at 

11:00 a.m. Plaintiffs’ attorney has certified that the application was served on defendants 

Reconstruct and BAC by personal delivery on July 7, 2010. Doc. No. 9. 

Case 3:10-cv-02439-RS Document 11 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 5
NO. C 10-00805 RS 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), the Court may issue a temporary restraining 

order 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.” The movant’s attorney must certify in writing “any efforts made to give notice.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). 

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, never 

awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008); 

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982). “The standard for issuing a temporary 

restraining order is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Brown Jordan 

Int’l, Inc. v. Mind’s Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2002). “A plaintiff 

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los 

Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter 129 S. Ct. at 374). 

III. ANALYSIS 

 Under Winter, the first required element is the demonstration of a likelihood of success on 

the merits. 129 S. Ct. at 374. Plaintiffs contend that in August of 2006, when the parties signed the 

relevant home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) documents, defendants failed to provide plaintiffs 

with notice of the right to rescind as required by federal Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(b)(1). 

Under Regulation Z, “If the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered, the right to 

rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer’s interest in 

the property, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurs first.” 12 C.R.R. § 226.23(a)(3). 

Plaintiffs contend that they notified defendants Reconstruct, BAC, Countrywide Bank, N.A., 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A. of their right to rescind on July 29, 

2009, within the three year period set forth in Regulation Z. Accordingly, they contend they are 

entitled to rescind the mortgage under TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1635. Based upon the facts properly 

Case 3:10-cv-02439-RS Document 11 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 5
NO. C 10-00805 RS 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

before the Court at this time, this disclosure failure arguably violates TILA; therefore, plaintiffs 

have satisfactorily shown for purposes of temporary injunctive relief a likelihood of success on the 

merits.1

The second element in the analysis is the likelihood that the Rivera family will suffer 

irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO. It is beyond cavil that this element is present; the real 

property at issue in the foreclosure is plaintiffs’ principal residence. 

The third element is whether the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor. Again, this 

question is easily answered. Finding a sufficient likelihood of success concerning defendants’ 

failure to disclose loan documents properly, equitable concerns dictate that foreclosure proceedings 

should be halted for the limited period set forth herein while the concerns raised by the Complaint 

are addressed in court. 

The final consideration is whether a TRO is in the public interest. Given the current 

widespread financial crisis, skyrocketing unemployment, and the attendant plummet in home values, 

the public interest favors keeping them in their home while the instant lawsuit proceeds, at least for 

the 14-day TRO period. 

No security bond shall be imposed. Although the literal language of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 65(c) suggests that a restraining order will not be issued without a security bond, a district 

court has broad discretion in setting the amount of a bond. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images 

of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, “[t]he district court may dispense 

with the filing of a bond when it concludes there is no realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant 

from enjoining his or her conduct.” Jorgensen v. Cassidy, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, 

defendants face no realistic likelihood of harm from temporary restraint of the foreclosure 

 

1

 Based upon the allegations made in the Complaint as to the relationship between HELOC and the 

mortgage, it is unsettled whether, even were plaintiffs to prevail on their right to rescind under 

HELOC, they would prevail on their right to rescind the mortgage. The right to rescind under TILA 

does not apply to a “residential mortgage transaction.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e); 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(f). 

A “residential mortgage transaction” is defined as “a transaction in which a mortgage ... is created or 

retained against the consumer's dwelling to finance the acquisition ... of such a dwelling”. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1602(w); 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(a)(24). Given the equities in this case, however, it is appropriate to 

grant this temporary relief, with the expectation that the issue will be addressed at the preliminary 

injunction stage. 

Case 3:10-cv-02439-RS Document 11 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 5
NO. C 10-00805 RS 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

4 

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 

proceedings. If the defendants’ position that the loans are valid is correct, then the loans are 

adequately secured by the very property in question. Phleger v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 

2007 WL 4105672 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2007). A bond is therefore not necessary in this case. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Because plaintiffs have demonstrated that they will likely suffer immediate irreparable injury 

as a result of the foreclosure sale, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion and hereby ORDERS as 

follows: 

1. Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and representatives, and all persons 

acting in concert or participating with them, are ENJOINED from selling, transferring, 

conveying, evicting or engaging in any other conduct adverse to plaintiffs regarding the 

real property located at 153 Smith Street, Alamo, California, 94507; 

2. This order shall be binding upon the parties to this action and all other persons or entities 

who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise. 

3. Defendants are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why they and their agents, servants, 

employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert or participating with them 

should not be enjoined or restrained during the pendency of this action from engaging in, 

committing or performing, directly or indirectly, the selling, transferring, conveying or 

engaging in any other conduct adverse to plaintiffs regarding the real property located at 

153 Smith Street, Alamo, California, 94507. 

4. Defendants may file a written response to this order to show cause on or before June 15, 

2010 at 3:00 p.m. The court will hear plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on 

June 17, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3 on the 17th Floor of the United States 

Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 

5. Absent further action from the Court, this TRO will expire on the date of the show cause 

hearing. 

6. Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on defendants by close of business on June 

8, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-02439-RS Document 11 Filed 06/07/10 Page 4 of 5
NO. C 10-00805 RS 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

5 

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 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 06/07/2010 

Time: 5:00 p.m. 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:10-cv-02439-RS Document 11 Filed 06/07/10 Page 5 of 5