Leticia Munguia v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 52

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court DENIES plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 2/11/2015 Order denying plaintiff's renewed application for a temporary restraining order 39 . Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-00582-CAS(JCx)

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 13, 2015

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS): PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Dkt. 39, filed
April 14, 2015)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing currently scheduled for May 18,
2015 is hereby vacated, and the matter is taken under submission.
On January 26, 2015, plaintiff Leticia Munguia filed this lawsuit against
defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), NBS Default Services, LLC
(“NBS”), APB Properties, LLC (“APB”), and Does 1 through 10. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff
alleges claims under the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (“HBOR”), Cal. Civil
Code §§ 2924.18(a)(1), 2923.6(b), California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, the Clayton
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52-53, and the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus.
and Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq. Id. Plaintiff seeks to prevent defendants from taking
possession of her home, which appears to have been sold at a trustee’s sale on September
25, 2014. Compl. ¶¶ 23–28.
On February 2, 2015, plaintiff filed an application for a temporary restraining
order, seeking to enjoin defendants from taking possession of her home. Dkts. 5-7. By
order dated February 4, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff’s application without prejudice,
concluding that she had failed to explain why she would suffer irreparable harm if her
requested relief was not granted before defendants were served. Dkt. 15.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-00582-CAS(JCx)

May 13, 2015

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, ET AL.

On February 6, 2015, plaintiff filed a renewed application for a temporary
restraining order, this time attaching adequate proofs of service. Dkt. 13. In this renewed
application, plaintiff argued that a temporary restraining order should issue because she
was likely to succeed on the merits of her claim for dual tracking in violation section
2923.6 of the HBOR. Id. The Court denied plaintiff’s application by order dated
February 11, 2015, explaining that “[b]ecause injunctive relief is only available pursuant
to Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.12 when the trustee’s sale has not yet occurred, this Court is
without authority to provide plaintiff the relief she seeks.” Dkt. 21.
On April 14, 2015, plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s February 11, 2015 order pursuant to Local Rule 7-18. Dkt. 38.1 Defendant APB
opposed this motion on April 27, 2015. Dkt. 41.
Before the instant motion could be heard, however, plaintiff filed a third ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order on April 29, 2015. Dkt. 43. In her third
application, plaintiff again requested that the Court enjoin defendant APB Properties
from taking possession of her home, and again asserted that she was likely to prevail on
the merits of her claim for violation of section 2923.6 of the HBOR. Id. Plaintiff further
represented that “APB Properties was granted judgment in the Unlawful Detainer Case

1

Local Rule 7–18 sets forth the bases upon which the Court may reconsider the
decision on any motion:
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made
only on the grounds of: (a) a material difference in fact or law from that
presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration
at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a
change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest
showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before
such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any
oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original
motion.
C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–18.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-00582-CAS(JCx)

May 13, 2015

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, ET AL.

for possession of Plaintiff’s Property.” Id. Applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
which precludes federal courts from reviewing state court judgments, the Court
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s application and denied it
accordingly. Dkt. 46 at 2. The Court also reiterated that, notwithstanding application of
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court was without power to grant injunctive relief
pursuant to the HBOR because such relief is only available when a trustee’s sale has not
yet occurred. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff’s instant motion for reconsideration recapitulates the same arguments and
legal theories twice rejected by this Court, and does not proffer new material facts or
otherwise demonstrate the Court’s failure to consider material facts. Although the Court
is mindful of plaintiff’s difficult situation, the Court is simply without power to grant
plaintiff the injunctive relief she seeks.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s February 11, 2015 order denying plaintiff’s renewed application for a temporary
restraining order.
IT IS SO ORDERED
00

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3