Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03500/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03500-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sedalia Benton
Plaintiff
Indymac Federal Bank
Defendant
Real Estate Financial Services, Inc.
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SEDALIA BENTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-03500-JSW 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 

DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND 

Re: Docket Nos. 11-12 

On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff, Sedalia Benton (“Ms. Benton”) filed her Complaint, an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for a temporary restraining order. On July 

30, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying her application to proceed in forma pauperis, denied 

her motion for a temporary restraining order, and dismissed her Complaint with leave to amend. 

On October 1, 2015, pursuant to the Court’s Order, Ms. Benton filed a First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”), and on October 13, 2015, she filed a renewed application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and a motion for a preliminary injunction. 

In her FAC, Ms. Benton alleges that she obtained a mortgage loan of $636,000.00 from 

Defendant Real Estate Financial Services, Inc. on June 30, 2006, “in order to purchase the rental 

property of 5804 E. 16th Street, in Oakland, California” (the “Property”). (FAC ¶ 7.) She further 

alleges that Defendant, Indymac Federal Bank, recorded a modification on September 3, 2009 and 

that a notice of default was filed on November 25, 2009. (Id. ¶ 10.) She further alleges that on 

December 21, 2009, an assignment was recorded assigning Onewest as the trustee and/or servicer. 

(Id.) Finally, in her motion for an emergency injunction, she suggests that an entity named Seterus 

is not a holder in due course and cannot perform any service relating to “the instrument.” It is not 

Case 4:15-cv-03500-JSW Document 14 Filed 10/14/15 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 Californi

a

clear whether the instrument refers to the Promissory Note or the Deed of Trust. 

Once again, Ms. Benton has not alleged whether a notice of trustee’s sale has been 

scheduled. Nor is it clear whether Ms. Benton applied for another loan modification after 

September 3, 2009. If she did apply for another loan modification, she does not allege when she 

did so. Although Ms. Benton identifies three causes of action, “violation of assignment 

requirements,” “disqualified trustee,” and “violation of holder in due course,” the Court still 

cannot discern the nature of Defendant’s alleged misconduct. 

Ms. Benton has also attached two letters to her FAC which refer to dual tracking, but there 

are insufficient allegations in the FAC from which the Court could reasonably infer dual tracking 

has occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a viable claim for relief, and the Court 

DENIES her renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The Court DISMISSES the FAC, and it shall provide Ms. Benton with one final 

opportunity to amend her complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order. If Ms. 

Benton wishes to pursue this action, she must file an amended complaint setting forth a cognizable 

legal claim and some factual basis to support a claim with federal jurisdiction by November 13, 

2015. Plaintiff may file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis upon filing an 

amended complaint. Failure to file timely an amended complaint shall result in dismissal of this 

action with prejudice. 

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Ms. Benton’s motion for an emergency injunction, 

which the Court construes as a motion for a temporary restraining order, is DENIED. In order to 

obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff “must establish that 

she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the 

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

omitted). The Winter court also noted that because injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy,” 

it “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” 555 

U.S. at 22 (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). Thus “[i]n each 

case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each 

Case 4:15-cv-03500-JSW Document 14 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

par

Co

les

bal

two

inju

113

Co

ren

hel

or i

ass

898

Flo

be 

Da

rty of the gra

. v. Gambell

Followi

ser showing

lance of hard

o prongs und

unction is in

34 (9th Cir. 

urt DENIES

newing her m

The Co

lpful informa

in the Clerk

sistance from

82 or sign up

oor of the Oa

able to prov

IT IS S

ated: October

anting or wit

l, 480 U.S. 5

ing Winter, c

 of likelihoo

dships tips st

der Winter b

n the public i

2011). Beca

S the motion 

motion if, and

ourt again ad

ation about p

’s office. Th

m the Legal H

p on the 15th

akland Court

vide basic leg

SO ORDER

r 14, 2015 

thholding of

531, 542 (19

courts in the

od of success

trongly in th

by showing th

interest. Alli

ause the Cou

for a prelim

d when, she 

dvises Ms. Be

proceeding w

he Court also

Help Center.

h Floor of th

thouse, Room

gal help, but

RED. 

3

f the requeste

87)). 

e Ninth Circu

s that amoun

he plaintiff’s 

hat there is a

iance For Th

urt finds that

minary injunc

files an ame

enton that a 

without an at

o advises Ms

. Ms. Bento

he San Franc

m 470S, for 

not legal rep

ed relief.’” I

uit may appl

nt to “serious

favor, as lon

a likelihood 

he Wild Roc

t Ms. Benton

ction. That r

ended compl

Handbook f

ttorney, is av

s. Benton th

on may call th

cisco Courtho

a free appoi

presentation

__

JE

Un

Id. at 24 (cit

ly a sliding s

s questions o

ng as the pla

of irreparab

kies v. Cottr

n fails to alle

ruling is with

laint. 

for Pro Se Li

vailable thro

hat she also m

he Legal He

ouse, Room 

intment with

n. 

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

ting Amoco P

scale test wh

on the merits

aintiff satisfi

le injury and

rell, 632 F.3d

ege a valid c

hout prejudi

itigants, whi

ough the Cou

may wish to 

elp Center at

2796, or on

h an attorney

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

Production 

hen there is a

s” and the 

ies the other 

d that the 

d 1127, 

claim, the 

ice to 

ich contains 

urt’s website

seek 

t 415-782-

n the 4tth 

y who may 

____ 

ge 

a

e

Case 4:15-cv-03500-JSW Document 14 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 3