Benson v. Jantz et al

Filing 5

ORDER that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/9/2012.(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Vicky S. Benson,

9

NO. CV-12-1693-PHX-FJM

Plaintiff,

ORDER

10

v.

11

Daren W. Jantz; Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance,
Inc., et al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary

15

Restraining Order (Doc. 3). For the reasons discussed below, the application for TRO is

16

denied.

17

On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff Vicky S. Benson filed her Complaint in this action

18

and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2). She does not appear to

19

have served the Complaint or to have otherwise provided notice to Defendants of her suit.

20

(See Docs. 1, 3). Also on August 9, Plaintiff moved for an ex parte TRO, arguing that she

21

“will be wrongfully removed from her single family home without the benefit of a

22

hearing.” (Doc. 3 at 3).
1

1
2
3
4
5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without
written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only
if:
(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

6
7

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made
to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

8

FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to provide any writing stating

9

the reasons why notice to Defendants of her TRO application should not be required nor

10

does it appear that she has provided Defendants with notice of her request for a hearing.

11

The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO without prejudice to her filing

12

it again in compliance with the rule.

13
14
15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 9th day of August, 2012.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2