Kathleen Angel Einsenberg v. Citibank NA et al

Filing 188

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order 185 . On 8/18/2017, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the foreclosure sa le on the Subject Property. To the extent the Court retains jurisdiction, it construes the present application to be a request to stay enforcement of its judgment pending plaintiff's appeal. However, the Court, having granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, has already concluded that plaintiff did not succeed on the merits of her claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-01814-CAS(JPRx)

Title

KATHLEEN ANGEL EISENBERG v. CITIBANK N.A.; ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’
August 18, 2017

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Dkt. 185, filed
August 18, 2017)

On February 8, 2013, plaintiff filed this action to recover damages, rescind the
adjustable rate mortgage instrument, and prevent the foreclosure of her home at 25431
Prado De Las Fresas, Calabasas CA 91302 (“Subject Property”). Dkt. 1.
On July 10, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
all remaining claims in this action. Dkt. 178. On July 13, 2017, the Court entered
judgment in favor of defendants. Dkt. 180. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August
14, 2017. Dkt. 181.
On August 18, 2017, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary
restraining order to enjoin the foreclosure sale on the Subject Property. Dkt. 185.
Plaintiff seeks an injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, which
provides: “A party must ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . an order
suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending.”
Fed. R. App. P. 8(a).
The standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction are “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brushy &
Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction is an
“extraordinary remedy.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24
(2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
CV-1814 (08/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01814-CAS(JPRx)

August 18, 2017

Title

KATHLEEN ANGEL EISENBERG v. CITIBANK N.A.; ET AL.

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,
1052 (9th Cir. 2009).
To the extent the Court retains jurisdiction, it construes the present application to
be a request to stay enforcement of its judgment pending plaintiff’s appeal. However, the
Court, having granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, has already concluded
that plaintiff did not succeed on the merits of her claims. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-1814 (08/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

00
CMJ

Page 2 of 2