1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT L. WIGGINS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12680 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF #2) 

 On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff Robert L. Wiggins (“Wiggins”) filed a Complaint in this 

Court. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Wiggins alleges that in 2005 he “refinanced residential 

real estate in New Hudson, Oakland County, Michigan.” (Id. at ¶5.) Wiggins says that 

the “defendant banks made no effort or attempt to investigate [his] ability to repay the 

amounts financed prior to issuing the loan” (id. at ¶7), and that the monthly payments 

under his refinanced mortgage are “more than [he] could foreseeably pay.” (Id. at ¶8.) 

Wiggins further claims that the Defendants have reneged on a promise “that [Wiggins] 

would receive a fixed rate mortgage if he first agreed to accept [an] adjustable rate 

mortgage.” (Id. at ¶¶10-11.) 

 At the same time Wiggins filed his Complaint, he also filed the instant ex parte

Motion requesting a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause (See ECF 

#2.) In his Motion, Wiggins asks the Court to enter an order “enjoining a sheriff’s sale 

2:14-cv-12680-MFL-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 07/10/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 53
2

and enjoining interference with [his] possession of the subject property.” (Id. at 5, Pg. ID 

52.) 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs motions for temporary restraining 

orders. In relevant part, Rule 65 states that a “court may issue a temporary restraining 

order without written or oral notice to the adverse party” only when: 

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint 

clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can 

be heard in opposition; and 

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made 

to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 

Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 65(b)(1)(A)-(B). Wiggins has not complied with either of these 

requirements. First, on the record currently before the Court, Wiggins has not “clearly 

show[n] that immediate and irreparable injury...will result...before the adverse party can 

be heard in opposition.” Id. In fact, Wiggins has provided the Court no evidence that 

Defendants have scheduled a sheriff’s sale for his property, or even that his property is 

currently subject to foreclosure proceedings.1

 Simply put, Wiggins has not shown any 

need for “immediate” relief, especially before Defendants are served with this action. 

                                                            

1

 While at one point in his Complaint Wiggins appears to suggest that “foreclosure 

proceedings were instituted” (Compl. at ¶31), in other instances, he says only that 

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC “is threatening to institute foreclosure 

proceedings.” (Id. at ¶¶48, 81.) Wiggins has not provided the Court any evidence 

to support a finding that foreclosure proceedings are in fact ongoing or that 

Defendants have threatened to take any immediate action against Wiggins or his 

property. 

2:14-cv-12680-MFL-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 07/10/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 54
3

 Second, Wiggins has failed to “certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice 

[of his Motion] and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 

65(b)(1)(B). In his Complaint, Wiggins alleges that “defendants refused to return [his] 

repeated telephone calls, e-mails, and letters in a timely fashion.” (Compl. at ¶30.) 

Wiggins makes no effort, though, to link these communications to this Motion, and he 

has provided no evidence of any efforts to provide notice of this action or this Motion to 

the Defendants. Nor has Wiggins provided any reason why the Court should excuse 

notice in this case. Wiggins has thus failed to comply with the applicable federal rules. 

 Therefore, having reviewed Wiggins’ Complaint and Motion, for all of the reasons 

stated above, the Court DENIES Wiggins’ Motion for preliminary and ex parte relief. 

Following service of the Complaint on the Defendants, Plaintiff may file a motion for 

preliminary injunction. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 10, 2014 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on July 10, 2014, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-12680-MFL-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 07/10/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 55