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