Cytron v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 2 Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order without notice and denying 3 Plaintiff's motion for leave to appear in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/22/16.(LSP)

Download PDF
    1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 No. CV16-2441-PHX-DGC Adam C. Cytron, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 ORDER PHH Mortgage Corp. et. Al, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Yesterday, at 4:30 p.m., Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to block a trustee’s 17 sale of his property scheduled for today. Doc. 2. Plaintiff’s motion asked the Court to 18 grant a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) by 5:00 p.m. yesterday. Id. The Court was 19 in a jury trial yesterday, and did not see Plaintiff’s motion until this morning. For the 20 reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. 21 To obtain preliminary injunctive relief such as a TRO, a plaintiff must show that 22 he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 23 absence of relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that injunctive relief is 24 in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). The test 25 includes a sliding scale. If the plaintiff shows that the balance of hardships will tip 26 sharply in his favor, he need not make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the 27 merits – the existence of serious questions will suffice. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. 28 Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th Cir. 2010).     1 Plaintiff’s motion does not address any of these factors. Plaintiff argues that he 2 has canceled his mortgage, that Defendants have unclean hands, and that the Court can 3 stay proceedings related to the trustee’s sale, among other arguments. Plaintiff does not 4 clearly identify the legal claims upon which his TRO request is based. He asserts that he 5 has “overwhelming evidence” of Defendants’ unclean hands, but the attachments to his 6 motion are difficult to decipher. They appear to be a combination of excerpts from 7 “infransen Blog” and emails related to this case, but Plaintiff attaches no declaration or 8 affidavit. He does make reference to his complaint, but it is not sworn. Doc. 1. Thus, in 9 addition to failing to address the requirements for a TRO, Plaintiff has failed to provide 10 proper supporting evidence. 11 Plaintiff also asks for a TRO without notice, but he has failed to address the 12 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Nor does he provide the affidavit 13 or verified complaint required by that rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 14 IT IS ORDERED: 15 1. 16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appear in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is 18 improperly filed and is therefore denied. 19 Dated this 22nd day of July, 2016. 20 21 22 23 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?