Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00986-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bill Beckmann
Defendant
Brian T. Moynihan
Defendant
Recontrust Company
Defendant
Sirrium
Plaintiff
Joseph R. Tomkinson
Defendant
Seth Waugh
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Sirrum

pro per

Plaintiff,

Petitioner

v.

JOSEPH R. TOMKINSON and/or his 

successor, individually, and in his official 

capacity as CEO OF IMPAC FUNDING 

CORP dba IMPAC FUNDING GROUP 

19500 Jamboree Rd

Irvine, CA 92612

BILL BECKMANN and/or his successor, 

Individually, and in his official capacity as

PRES/CEO OF MERS

1901 East Voorhess, Ste. C

Danville, IL 61834

BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his 

successor, individually, and in his official 

capacity as PRES/CEO OF BAC HOME 

LOANS SERVICING, LP,/ BANK OF 

AMERICA N.A., & RECONTRUST CO., 

subsidiary of BANK OF AMERICA 

100 North Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28255

RECONTRUST COMPANY, fully owned 

by BANK OF AMERICA

2380 Performance Drive

Richardson, TX 75082

No. 2:13-cv-00986 TLN-CMK

ORDER

Case 2:13-cv-00986-TLN-CMK Document 3 Filed 05/21/13 Page 1 of 4
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

SETH WAUGH and/or his successor, 

individually, and in his official capacity as 

PRES/CEO of DEUTSCHE BANK 

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

1761 E. St. Andrews Place

Santa Ana, CA 92705

Does 1-2000, et al

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Sirrium’s “Emergency Ex Parte Petition 

Emergency TRO” (“TRO Application”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Sirrium (“Plaintiff”) appearing 

pro per asks the Court to stop her eviction scheduled for Wednesday May 22, 2013. Defendants 

appear to be companies Impac Funding Group, MERS, Bank of America N.A., Recontrust Co.,

and Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., and their chief executive officers, Joseph R. Tomkinson, 

Bill Beckmann, Brian T. Moynihan, and Seth Waugh. 1 Defendants have not had an opportunity 

to respond to this TRO Application filed less than 48 hours from Plaintiff’s alleged eviction date. 

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), they are not immune from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). To qualify for a temporary restraining order, the 

moving party must demonstrate (1) a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of 

irreparable harm, or (2) that the lawsuit raises serious questions and the balance of hardship tips 

sharply in the movant's favor. See Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir.

1986); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515

(9th Cir. 1984); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

The Eastern District of California Local Rules impose additional requirements for a 

temporary restraining order. Under Local Rule 231(b) “[i]n considering a motion for a temporary 

restraining order, the Court will consider whether the applicant could have sought relief by 

motion for preliminary injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute 

 

1

It is not clear whether Plaintiff means to sue the companies only, their CEOs or both, but for purposes of this Order, 

this Court will construe the pleadings liberally where the petitioner is appearing pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). 

Case 2:13-cv-00986-TLN-CMK Document 3 Filed 05/21/13 Page 2 of 4
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

relief by motion for temporary restraining order. Should the Court find that the applicant unduly 

delayed in seeking injunctive relief, the Court may conclude that the delay constitutes laches or 

contradicts the applicant's allegations of irreparable injury and may deny the motion solely on 

either ground.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 231(b); see also Lamon v. Pliler, No. CIVS03-0423FCD-CMK-P, 

2006 WL 120088, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2006) (recommending injunctive relief be denied), 

injunctive relief denied as moot and report adopted by 2006 WL 2583277 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 

2006).

The Court has considered the TRO Application and the supporting documentation. The

Court denies the TRO Application. First, Plaintiff fails to show any likelihood of success on the 

merits. See Winters v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“A 

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [s]he is likely to succeed on the 

merits. . . .”). Plaintiff’s TRO Application only states that “[a]ll of the allegations and beliefs are 

well founded and well supported with evidence. The crimes and violations involved in this case 

are supported by clear merits and foundation when analyzed by an unbiased professional such as 

a judge. All of the claims can be proven to be with strong merits.” (ECF No. 1, 20:16-20.) 

However, the TRO Application is largely incomprehensible, consisting of long excerpts of 

exhibits, news articles, and legal documents from other cases. At best, the TRO Application 

appears to allege that the Defendants’ had no legal right to transfer or assign her mortgage to 

anyone, and alleges that Defendants and other third party individuals violated various laws in

doing so. However, Plaintiff’s claims for relief, even if true, do not explain how these violations 

led to the allegedly improper foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s property and eviction. 

Moreover, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why she waited to file this TRO 

Application on the eve of eviction. Several documents attached to Plaintiff’s TRO Application 

indicate that she has had ample time to mount a legal challenge to Defendants’ loan and 

foreclosure practices: 

 In a letter from Bank of America dated August 20, 2012, Bank of America informs 

Plaintiff that her loan was referred to foreclosure on March 25, 2011, and the property 

went into foreclosure sale on February 17, 2012. (ECF No. 1, 60.)

Case 2:13-cv-00986-TLN-CMK Document 3 Filed 05/21/13 Page 3 of 4
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

4

 A“Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust,” recorded date of April 4, 

2011. (ECF No. 1, 75-77.)

 A “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” to take place on July 27, 2011, recorded date of July 5, 2011. 

(ECF. No. 1, 79-80.)

 A “Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale” reading that the trustee sold real property at a public action 

on February 17, 2012, recorded date of March 13, 2012. (ECF No. 1, 92-94.)

 Plaintiff also sent several letters to Defendants and other third parties regarding this 

property on January 6, 2013. (ECF No. 1, 96-108.)

In light of the above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s unexplained delay in bringing her TRO

Application constitutes laches, she has unreasonably delayed in seeking injunctive relief, and her 

actions contradict the allegations of irreparable injury.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-00986-TLN-CMK Document 3 Filed 05/21/13 Page 4 of 4