Dale Sabacky v. OneWest Bank, F.S.B. et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE REQUEST IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 1/26/2015 (lc).

Download PDF
1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE SABACKY, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff, v. ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B,, a bank; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a sovereign state entity; SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a judicial state entity; JERRY BROWN, as Governor of the State of California; KAMALA HARRIS, as Attorney General of the State of California; JUDGE DAVID S. WESLEY, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles; SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, an enforcement peace officer as an arm of the Superior Court; FIRST FEDERAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA; MTC FINANCIAL INC., dba Trustee Corps, as Trustee; T.D. SERVICE COMPANY, as Trustee; NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE, and Does 1-10, 26 27 28 Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 15-00546 DDP (KK) ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE REQUEST IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS [Dkt. No. 1.] 1 On January 23, Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court 2 regarding an unlawful detainer matter pending in state court. As 3 part of the complaint, Plaintiff seeks, as his first Cause of 4 Action, a “writ of mandate for temporary restraining order and 5 preliminary injunction for all defendants.” 6 More specifically, he seeks “an order enjoining the defendant 7 governmental officials from the continued processing of this 8 plaintiff’s UD action removed to this court, and further to enjoin 9 the foreclosing defendants from any resale, re-conveyance or (Complaint at 10.) 10 hypothecation of the subject premises pendent lite.”1 11 ¶ 16.) 12 Court as a separate application, see L.R. 65-1, for reasons of 13 economy and because Plaintiff is not represented the Court 14 considers the application on the merits. 15 (Complaint, Although this request would more properly come before the “The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is 16 identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.” 17 Whitman v. Hawaiian Tug & Barge Corporation/Young Bros., Ltd. 18 Salaried Pension Plan, 27 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1228 (D.Haw.1998). 19 to succeed in an application for a TRO, the moving party must show 20 “either a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility 21 of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the 22 balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant's favor.” 23 for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, Coal. As 24 25 26 27 28 1 Despite Plaintiff’s characterization, the Court does not consider the state court matter to have been “removed to this court” in this case. See Onewest Bank FSB v. Dale Sabacky, No. 2:14-cv-09308-DDP-FFM, Dkt. No. 8 (Dec. 15, 2014) (prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any further notice of removal from Los Angeles Superior Court without an order of the Court or the Chief Judge). 2 1 to success on the merits, Plaintiff presents no argument other than 2 the conclusory statement that “defendants have little or no 3 defenses the serious allegations against them [sic] and otherwise 4 have has [sic] no justiciable claims against Plaintiff.” 5 (Complaint, ¶ 19.) 6 the TRO requested. 7 The Court finds that there is no cause to grant Plaintiff also “move[s] for” a stay of proceedings in the 8 event that the TRO is denied. 9 for a stay of proceedings should be a noticed motion filed in 10 11 (Complaint at 12:16-19.) A motion accordance with local rules. The application for a temporary restraining order, and the 12 request in the alternative for a stay of proceedings, are hereby 13 DENIED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: January 26, 2015 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?