Willie Mayora v. Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust, Series 06-00001 et al

Filing 9

ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: denying 4 PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE (shb)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case № 2:15-cv-00584-ODW(APJWx)

WILLIE MAYORA ,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v.

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

13

FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

14

INVESTMENT TRUST, SERIES 2006-1;

ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO

15

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL

SHOW CAUSE WHY A

16

ASSOCIATION; HADI R SEYED-ALI;

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

17

LAW OFFICES OF LES ZIEVEL; 4041

SHOULD NOT ISSUE [4]

18

HALLDALE AVE LOS ANGELES

19

CALIFORNIA 90062; In Rem LOT 147

20

OF PIONEER INVESTMENT AND

21

TRUST COMPANY UNIVERSITY

22

PLACE TRACT; In Rem AIN 5021-003-

23

020; In Rem AIN 4021-003-010; DOES 1-

24

10, inclusive,

25
26

Defendants.
I.

INTRODUCTION

27

Pro Se Plaintiff Willie Mayora filed an Application for a Temporary

28

Restraining Order and An Order to Show Cause Why A Preliminary Injunction

1

Should Not Issue.

2

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. For the reasons discussed below,

3

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application.

4

(ECF No. 4.)

II.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5

In 2006, Willie Mayora became the owner of 4041 Halldale Ave., Los Angeles,

6

CA 90062. (TRO App., Ex. 2.) He alleges that he is the current owner of the

7

property. 1 (Id. at 4–6.) However, according to a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, in 2010,

8

HSBC, as indenture trustee of the Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2006-

9

1(“FMT”), purchased the property. (Id., Ex. 1.) On August 12, 2014, HSBC filed suit

10

against Mayora in Los Angeles County Superior Court for unlawful detainer. (Id.)

11

The suit is still pending. (Case No. 14U10006.)

12

On January 26, 2015, Mayora filed suit against numerous Defendants, including

13

HSBC and FMT, in federal court for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices

14

Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692. (Compl.) Plaintiff alleges that HSBC and FMT do not have a

15

contract with him and did not extend him any credit. (Id. ¶¶ 48–51.) Plaintiff also

16

alleges that HSBC and FMT participated in a false debt collection foreclosure. (Id.

17

¶¶ 52–54.) He seeks a determination of title, $520,000 in compensatory damages,

18

$520,000 in special damages, and $5,200,000 in punitive damages. (Id. ¶¶ 17a–d.)

19

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Application for a Temporary Restraining

20

Order and An Order to Show Cause Why A Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue.

21

(ECF No. 4.)

22

November 28, 2007 Notice of Default explaining that Plaintiff owed over $14,000 and

23

needed to take prompt action; (2) an August 5, 2010 Notice of Trustee’s Sale

24

explaining that the property would be sold on August 31, 2010; and (3) a December 2,

25

2010 Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale showing that HSBC purchased the property. (TRO

26

App., Ex. 4.)

Documents submitted with Plaintiff’s Application include: (1) a

27
28

1

Plaintiff’s Application and Complaint contain little factual information. Therefore, the Court looks
to exhibits submitted with the Application.

2

1

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

A court may issue a temporary restraining order upon a showing “that

3

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the

4

adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose

5

of such an order is solely to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm

6

“just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods,

7

Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974).

8

“The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the

9

standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v.

10

Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995); see also Stuhlbarg

11

Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brushy and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir.

12

2001). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) a likelihood of

13

success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the

14

absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4)

15

that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555

16

U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

17

The Ninth Circuit employs a “sliding scale” approach to Winter’s four-element

18

test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

19

Under this approach, a preliminary injunction may issue if the plaintiff raises “serious

20

questions going to the merits” and demonstrates that “the balance of hardship tips

21

sharply towards the plaintiff’s favor,” but only so long as the plaintiff also

22

demonstrates that irreparable harm is likely—not just possible—and that the

23

injunction is in the public interest. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

24

Finally, “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as

25

of right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. Thus, a district court should enter preliminary

26

injunctive relief only “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”

27

Id. at 22.

28

3

1

IV.

DISCUSSION

2

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the first of four elements

3

required to obtain a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits.

4

Plaintiff does not address whether he is likely to succeed on the merits. According to

5

documents submitted with Plaintiff’s Application, he purchased the property in 2006,

6

defaulted in 2007, received notice the property would be sold in 2010, and received

7

proof the property had been sold in 2010. Plaintiff has only provided the Court with

8

the allegation that he does not owe any debt or have any contractual obligations.

9

Given the documents that establish HSBC purchased the property after

10

Plaintiff’s default, the Court cannot rely only on Plaintiff’s allegation. Plaintiff must

11

provide documentation.

12

V.

CONCLUSION

13

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application for

14

Temporary Restraining Order and Issuance of An Order to Show Cause Why A

15

Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue. (ECF No. 4.)

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

January 28, 2015

19
20
21
22

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

4