Contreras et al v. Residential Credit Solutions et al

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Motion For Temporary Injunction Should Not be Denied With Prejudice as Moot, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 12/22/2010. (Plaintiffs shall file a response to this order to show cause no later than 10 days after receiving notice of thisorder.) (Gaumnitz, R)

-GSA Contreras et al v. Residential Credit Solutions et al

Doc. 8

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs Gerardo Contreras and Laura Alvarado ("Plaintiffs") proceed with an action seeking and injunctive Quality Loan relief against Corp. v. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants. 1:10-CV-02361-OWW-GSA GERARDO CONTRERAS and LAURA ALVARADO, Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED WITH PREJUDICE AS MOOT

Residential

Credit

Solutions

Service

("Defendants"). wrongfully

(Doc. 1). on

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants their residential real property.

foreclosed

Plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order on December 20, 2010. (Doc. 2). Plaintiffs seek an order:

restraining and enjoining [Defendants]...from engaging in or performing any act to deprive Plaintiffs of their residence...including but not limited to setting aside or postponing lock-out eviction proceedings November 18, 2010...or from otherwise taking any steps whatsoever to deprive Plaintiffs of their residence in and possesion of the property or to impair or degrade the value of the property. (Doc. 2 at 1-2).

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs

contend

that

they

will

suffer

immediate

and

irreparable harm if they are evicted from their home. 2, 3-4).

(Doc. 2 at

However, Plaintiff's motion indicates that (1) the

subject property has already been foreclosed upon; (2) an unlawful detainer order has already issued; and (3) the eviction Plaintiffs seek to enjoin was scheduled to occur on November 18, 2010, over a month before Plaintiffs filed their motion. (Doc. 2 at 2).

Plaintiffs signed the motion on November 17, 2010, but did not file it until December 20. Facts alleged in Plaintiffs' motion suggest that Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order is moot, as the actions Plaintiffs seek to prevent appear to have already occurred. Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why the motion should not be denied as moot. Plaintiffs shall file a response to this order to

show cause no later than 10 days after receiving notice of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: hkh80h December 22, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2