Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01049/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01049-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Defendant
James Shoop
Plaintiff
Shauna Shoop
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUNA SHOOP, et al., CASE NO. CV F 10-1049 LJO DLB

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO DENY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

vs. (Doc. 14.)

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL

TRUST COMPANY,

Defendants.

 /

This Court’s June 28, 2010 order (“June 28 order”) dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs Shauna

Shoop and James Shoop’s (collectively “plaintiffs’”) action against defendant Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) on grounds that plaintiffs’ claims against Deutsche Bank are

meritless and time barred. After entry of the June 28 order, plaintiffs filed papers to seek relief to enjoin

the non-judicial foreclosure sale of their Angels Camp, California property.

Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they are entitled to injunctive relief. The purpose of a

preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the

moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the

action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A

preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable

success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance

of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir.

1

Case 1:10-cv-01049-LJO-DLB Document 16 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 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

1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” 

Arcamuzi, 819 F.2d at 937. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of

success on the merits.” Arcamuzi, 819 F.2d at 937. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate

a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Arcamuzi, 819

F.2d at 937.

With dismissal of this action, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate probable success on their

claims, questions serious enough to require litigation, or significant threat of irreparable injuryto warrant

denial of injunctive relief. The requested injunctive relief would be a hardship to Deutsche Bank which

seeks to exercise its rights to foreclose the property despite plaintiffs’ meritless claims.

Forthe reasons discussed above, this Court DENIES plaintiffs injunctive or other reliefto enjoin

foreclosure proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01049-LJO-DLB Document 16 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 2