Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04030/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04030-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
America's Servicing Company
Defendant
NDEX West LLC
Defendant
Dennison Raval
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNISON RAVAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04030-YGR 

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER; DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Plaintiff Dennison Raval has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 

15) seeking to restrain defendants America’s Servicing Corporation, a division of Wells Fargo 

Bank, and NDex West LLC (“Defendants”) from conducting a Trustee Sale of the residence 

located at 108 Valleyview Way, South San Francisco, California 94080. 

Plaintiff’s complaint here was filed September 3, 2015. Therein, he alleged that 

Defendants violated California Civil Code sections 2923.55 and 2923.6, as well as claims for 

fraud and violation of the Unfair Competition law, based upon the origination of his 2006 loan, as 

well as handling of his loan modification application prior to the filing of the complaint and the 

foreclosure sale date of September 8, 2015. (See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 32-33 and generally.)

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that 

govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,

434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 

F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic 

remedy,” that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-690 (2008) 

(internal citations omitted). Whether seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary 

injunction, a plaintiff must establish four factors: (1) that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 

merits; (2) that plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) 

that the balance of equities tips in plaintiff’s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public 

interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

Case 4:15-cv-04030-YGR Document 16 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Northern District of California

In the present motion, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits of his claim for violation of Cal. Civ. Code 2923.6(c). That section provides:

(c) If a borrower submits a complete application for a first lien loan modification 

offered by, or through, the borrower's mortgage servicer, a mortgage servicer,

mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of 

default or notice of sale, or conduct a trustee's sale, while the complete first lien 

loan modification application is pending. A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, 

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default or notice of sale 

or conduct a trustee’s sale until any of the following occurs: 

(1) The mortgage servicer makes a written determination that the borrower 

is not eligible for a first lien loan modification, and any appeal period 

pursuant to subdivision (d) has expired.

(2) The borrower does not accept an offered first lien loan modification 

within 14 days of the offer.

(3) The borrower accepts a written first lien loan modification, but defaults 

on, or otherwise breaches the borrower's obligations under, the first lien 

loan modification.

Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6 (West). If a modification is denied, the statute halts the foreclosure 

proceedings 

Plaintiff submits evidence that, on March 31, 2016, he and Josephine Raval were offered a 

first lien loan modification by Wells Fargo under a trial payment program. (Raval Declaration,

Exh. 2.) Thus, his loan modification application is apparently no longer “pending” but has been 

approved, contingent upon his acceptance of the offer. (Id.) More than 14 days have passed since 

that offer. Plaintiff offers no evidence that he accepted that March 31, 2016 offer or that he made 

the required payments such that he did not default on or otherwise breach his obligations. Nor 

does Plaintiff offer any other evidence to suggest that the loan modification is still pending or that 

the determination on the modification application has been appealed. In the absence of such 

evidence, his claim for violation of section 2923.6(c) lacks merit.1

Turning to the equities here, the record does not show that the balance of equities tips in 

favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that the equities favor delaying foreclosure while his loan 

modification application is under review, but does not reconcile the evidence that he was offered a 

loan modification as of March 31, 2016. 

 

1 Moreover, as a matter of procedure, the complaint on file in this action does not 

encompass the allegations of conduct occurring some six months after it was filed. 

Case 4:15-cv-04030-YGR Document 16 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

The Court notes that, on March 2, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re: 

Dismissal. Therein, the Court stated that Plaintiff had failed to serve defendants, and failed to 

comply with requirements to file a case management statement and appear at a case management

conference. Plaintiff was given until March 21, 2016, to file a statement regarding the status of 

his complaint or else have his complaint dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).) Plaintiff failed to file a 

response or any other document until this pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. It 

was only through a clerical error that no dismissal of the complaint was entered after March 21, 

2016. 

Although the instant Motion itself was served by fax and mail on Defendants as of July 26, 

2016, there is still no indication that Defendants have ever been served with the complaint herein, 

or been given an opportunity to respond. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to move for ex parte relief 

until the day prior the scheduled foreclosure sale despite having been served with notice of the 

foreclosure sale on June 27, 2016. (Raval Declaration, Exh. 1.) 

Equity requires diligence. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3527. Plaintiff has not acted diligently in 

seeking relief through this motion, or in serving process on the action herein. Thus, the equities 

do not favor him. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to a temporary 

restraining order. The motion is DENIED. 

Further, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 

4(m) for failure to serve process timely and failure to comply with the rules and orders of this 

Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

July 26, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-04030-YGR Document 16 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 3