Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01254/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01254-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Fowler
Plaintiff
Colisa McFadden
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID FOWLER, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01254-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER; DIRECTING 

DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD 

NOT ISSUE; SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiffs David Fowler and Colisa McFadden's "Ex Parte 

Application for Temporary Restraining Order," filed February 27, 2018, by which plaintiffs 

seek injunctive relief to restrain defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") from 

foreclosing upon plaintiffs' real property located in Richmond, California. Having read 

and considered the papers filed in support of the application, the Court hereby rules as 

follows.

"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." 

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). "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." Id. at 20; Quiroga 

v. Chen, 735 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1223 (D. Nev. 2010) (noting "[t]emporary restraining 

orders are governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions"). 

Alternatively, under the "sliding scale test," a preliminary injunction is appropriate where 

Case 3:18-cv-01254-MMC Document 9 Filed 02/27/18 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

the plaintiff, in addition to establishing he is likely to suffer irreparable harm and that the 

injunction is in the public interest, establishes that "serious questions going to the merits" 

exist and that "the balance of hardships tips sharply in [his] favor." See Alliance for the 

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).

Here, with respect to what appears to be plaintiffs' primary claim,1namely, 

plaintiffs' allegation that Wells Fargo violated § 2923.7(b) of the California Civil Code, the 

Court finds, given the lack of factual detail provided in support of such allegation, plaintiffs 

have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.2 Nonetheless, the Court finds 

plaintiffs have made an adequate showing under the alternative sliding scale test.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' application is hereby GRANTED, as follows:

1. Wells Fargo is ordered to show cause, on March 16, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., in 

Courtroom 7, why an order should not be entered granting plaintiffs a preliminary 

injunction enjoining Wells Fargo and its agents from foreclosing upon and selling the 

property located at 2853 Oxford Avenue, Richmond, California, 94806.

2. With respect thereto, the Court sets the following briefing schedule.

 a. Wells Fargo shall file, no later than 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, 2018, 

any opposition to plaintiffs' application.

 b. Plaintiffs shall file, no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 13, 2018, any 

reply thereto.

 

1Although plaintiffs assert Wells Fargo, in violation of § 2924b(b)(2), did not mail 

them a copy of the notice of trustee's sale by registered or certified mail at least twenty

days before the scheduled sale, and that Wells Fargo, in violation of § 2924f(b)(3), did 

not post a copy of the notice on their door at least twenty days before scheduled sale, 

they state they had actual knowledge of the notice twenty days before the scheduled 

sale. (See McFadden Decl. ¶ 14.) Under such circumstances, any failure by defendant 

to comply with § 2924b(b)(2) and/or 2924f(b)(3) was "harmless," and, consequently, "is 

not actionable." See Falcocchia v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 860, 870 (E.D. 

Cal. 2010).

2Plaintiffs fail to state, for example, what steps they took to reach Katie Madsen, 

their assigned point of contact, between November 16, 2017, the date of the second of 

the two letters on which they rely, and February 8, 2018, the date on which plaintiffs 

learned of the notice of trustee's sale, and, if they did reach Ms. Madsen, what 

information they received regarding their appeal.

Case 3:18-cv-01254-MMC Document 9 Filed 02/27/18 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

3. Pending the March 16, 2018, hearing, Wells Fargo and its agents are 

temporarily restrained from foreclosing upon and selling the above-referenced property.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01254-MMC Document 9 Filed 02/27/18 Page 3 of 3