Todd v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order 11 . Denying plaintiff's motion requesting status of temporary restraining order on grounds of mootness 10 . Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 4/25/12. (see order for full details)(DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.; Chase) Home Finance LLC; Chase Fulfillment) Services; Cal-Western Reconveyance) Corp.; United States Department of) Housing and Urban Development; PK) Management Group Inc.; Secretary of) Housing and Urban Development;) ) Unknown Parties, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Sandra Todd, CV 12-00129-PHX-FJM ORDER The court has before it plaintiff's motion requesting status of temporary restraining order (doc. 10) and motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") (doc. 11). 21 Plaintiff originally filed this action on January 20, 2012. We denied plaintiff's request 22 for a TRO for failure to satisfy the conditions of Rule 65(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. for issuing 23 a TRO without notice (doc. 4). Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on April 20, 2012 (doc. 24 6). Plaintiff alleges two counts for (1) quiet title and (2) breach of contract arising from the 25 sale of her home at a Trustee's Sale. 26 Plaintiff's motion for TRO reads in its entirety "[m]otion for relief and issue [sic] of 27 Temporary Restraining order to be effective immediately." Mot. for TRO at 1. There is no 28 indication that defendants have been provided notice. The motion does not satisfy the 1 requirements for issuance of a TRO without notice. It does not include "specific facts in an 2 affidavit or a verified complaint" that "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, 3 loss, or damage will result to the movant" before defendants can be heard, and does not 4 certify "in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be 5 required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Although plaintiff's amended complaint states that she 6 attempted to confer with an attorney regarding the TRO request made within the complaint, 7 an email from the attorney submitted by plaintiff indicated that he has not been retained by 8 defendants in this action. 9 Moreover, even if the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1) were satisfied, plaintiff has not 10 met the standards required for issuance of a TRO. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, 11 plaintiff must show that (1) she is "likely to succeed on the merits," (2) she is "likely to suffer 12 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief," (3) "the balance of equities tips in [her] 13 favor," and (4) "an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 14 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Plaintiff's one page motion does not provide 15 us with any details that would permit even an evaluation of whether issuance of a TRO is 16 warranted under this standard. 17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for a temporary 18 restraining order (doc. 11). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion 19 requesting status of temporary restraining order on grounds of mootness (doc. 10). 20 We again urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a lawyer. Only a lawyer can properly 21 evaluate plaintiff's position and take whatever steps may be necessary to protect plaintiff's 22 interests. 23 DATED this 25th day of April, 2012. 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?