Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01598/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01598-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
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

DALE HARMS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 10-01598 CW

ORDER DENYING EX

PARTE MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiffs Dale and Laurie Harms move ex parte for a temporary

restraining order prohibiting Defendants from conducting a trustee

sale of Plaintiffs’ property located at 930 W. Cypress Rd., Oakley,

CA 94561. 

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

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

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

Case 4:10-cv-01598-CW Document 18 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 3
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

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

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

Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that a temporary

restraining order should be issued. First, Plaintiffs argue that

Defendants have no standing to foreclose on their house because

Defendants do not presently own or possess the promissory note

secured by the deed of trust. However, possession of the note does

not necessarily affect the validity of a non-judicial foreclosure

sale. Roque v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., 2010 WL 546896, *3 (N.D.

Cal.) (“Uniformly among courts, production of the note is not

required to proceed in foreclosure and similarly no production of

any chain of ownership is required.”). Second, Plaintiffs have not

submitted any evidence demonstrating that they have a viable claim

to enjoin the foreclosure sale, and thus it is impossible to find

that they are likely to succeed on the merits. Second, they have

not identified the date of any potential foreclosure sale or

eviction, and thus have not demonstrated that they are likely to

suffer irreparable harm if Defendants are given an opportunity to

oppose preliminary injunctive relief. Third, even if Defendants

violated California law, Plaintiffs have not shown that enjoining

foreclosure proceedings would be an appropriate remedy. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:10-cv-01598-CW Document 18 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 3
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 3

Plaintiffs’ request for immediate ex parte relief is therefore

DENIED. If Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction, they must

serve the summons and complaint on any Defendant against whom

relief is sought. They must then file a properly noticed motion

under the Civil Local Rules. See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-2. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/21/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01598-CW Document 18 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 3