Jones v. First National Bank of Arizona et al

Filing 34

ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 22) is denied, without prejudice. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 6/30/2011.(KMG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jeannie T. Jones, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 First National Bank of Arizona; et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-633-PHX-JAT ORDER 15 16 Among the various motions currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion 17 for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 22. In the motion, Plaintiff seeks an order, “enjoining 18 Defendants ... from Title Transfer, dishonoring established Trust and/or subjecting Plaintiff 19 to abrupt eviction from the subject matter Real Property.” Id. at 1. Defendants respond and 20 argue that, although Plaintiff received a temporary restraining order blocking the trustee sale 21 from the state court prior to removal, such temporary restraining order was contingent on 22 Plaintiff posting a bond, which Plaintiff failed to do. Doc. 27 at 2. Defendants then state that 23 because Plaintiff failed to post a bond, the trustee sale of the real property in question 24 occurred on April 14, 2011. Id. 25 Plaintiff replies and argues that the copy of the state court minute entry submitted by 26 Defendants is a “false document.” Doc. 32 at 3. Plaintiff seems to be correct that the minute 27 entry submitted by Defendants appears to be page 1 of a minute entry from March 14, 2011 28 and page 2 of a minute entry from March 11, 2011. Doc. 27-1 at 3-4. Nonetheless, Plaintiff 1 does not dispute the substance of Defendants’ response; specifically, that the state court 2 required a bond, that Plaintiff failed to post a bond, and that the Trustee sale has already 3 occurred. 4 Although Plaintiff has requested oral argument on her motion, and an evidentiary 5 hearing in her reply, the Court does not find either to be necessary because Plaintiff has not 6 set forth any facts, which if true, would entitle her to preliminary injunctive relief. A plaintiff 7 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that: 8 [1] she is likely to succeed on the merits, 9 [2] she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 10 [3] the balance of equities tips in her favor, and 11 [4] an injunction is in the public interest. 12 American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 13 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). If 14 Plaintiff cannot meet this test, the Court may consider the alternative sliding scale test. “A 15 preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates ... that serious questions 16 going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s 17 favor. .... Of course, plaintiffs must also satisfy the other Winter factors.” Alliance for Wild 18 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (2011) (internal citations and quotations 19 omitted). 20 Here, Plaintiff’s entire argument in her unsigned motion is three paragraphs. None 21 of the paragraphs addresses likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance 22 of equities, or the public interest. Doc. 22.1 Thus, on this record, the Court will not grant 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The entire argument of the motion is: “Plaintiff states that this case involves repeated successful obstructions employed by Defendants to avoid any treatment on the merits. Plaintiff has made diligent efforts to seek review and not be forced through an illegal taking rooted in fraud. Plaintiff did move the state court in connection with these same Defendants, for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff requests that this Court view this [sic] pleadings as one generated by a pro se litigant. (citation omitted). Plaintiff submits that this motion is made in the interest of justice.” Doc. 22 at 2. -2- 1 preliminary injunctive relief. However, this Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff re-moving 2 for a preliminary injunction if she can show facts which support each of the prongs listed 3 above for seeking a preliminary injunction. 4 Based on the foregoing, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 22) is 6 7 denied, without prejudice. DATED this 30th day of June, 2011. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?