Kilgore v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al

Filing 57

ORDER Lifting Stay; ORDER Denying 53 Letter of Protest, Which Has Been Termed as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/3/13. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MARSHA KILGORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) ) WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, ) REGIONAL TRUSTEE SERVICES ) CORPORATION, EMMITT LEWIS ) FRED LACKER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 1:12-CV- 899 AWI SMS ORDER LIFTING STAY ORDER DENYING LETTER OF PROTEST, WHICH HAS BEEN TERMED AS A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Document #53) 19 20 This action concerns an action originally filed on May 14, 2012 in the Superior Court for 21 the State of California, County of Fresno, concerning a loan and deed of trust against property 22 located at 728 East Magill Avenue, Fresno, California 93710 (“the Property). Because the 23 complaint appeared to raise federal causes of action, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (“Defendant 24 Wells Fargo”) removed this action to this Court. The Court then granted Defendant Wells 25 Fargo’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. 26 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and Defendant Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the second 27 amended complaint. 28 On December 12, 2012 and January 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed notices with the Court that she 1 had filed for bankruptcy protection. The Court then ordered this action and all pending motions 2 stayed and requested Plaintiff and/or the Bankruptcy Trustee to file a notice of substitution into 3 this action or a memorandum concerning whether this action fell within the Bankruptcy Court’s 4 Jurisdiction. The Chapter 13 Trustee filed a response to the Court’s order in which the Trustee 5 provided legal authority and evidence showing that this action is not part of Plaintiff’s 6 bankruptcy filing. 7 In light of the Chapter 13 Trustee’s response, the stay in this action must be lifted as this 8 action has no effect on any bankruptcy proceedings. Given any stay should be lifted, the Court 9 must now address Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Defendant Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss, 10 and a pending “LETTER OF PROTEST”, which has been construed as a motion for a 11 preliminary injunction. As the motion for a preliminary injunction requests immediate relief, 12 that motion shall be addressed first. 13 On August 10, 2012, the court gave Plaintiff additional time in which to file an amended 14 complaint and restrained Defendants from proceeding with any Trustee Sale of the Property until 15 August 20, 2012. While an amended complaint was filed on August 17, 2012, until Plaintiff 16 filed her letter of protest on May 1, 2013, Plaintiff never filed another motion for a preliminary 17 injunction, never requested a further restraining order, and never opposed Defendants’ motion to 18 dismiss. As such, at this time, no restraining order is in effect. 19 A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) that she is likely to 20 succeed on the merits, (2) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 21 preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and (4) that an injunction is in 22 the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Park 23 Vill. Apt. Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). 24 The Court previously entered a temporary restraining order because Plaintiff had provided 25 evidence that she was not provided with the Notice of Default or Notice of Sale as required by 26 California Civil Code § 2924b. 27 contend Plaintiff was not given proper notice. Taking the documents in the light most favorable 28 to Plaintiff, Plaintiff requests an injunction stopping any pending sale based on this Court’s grant The pending motion for a preliminary injunction does not 2 1 of a prior restraining order and equitable factors, such as Plaintiff’s age, lack of legal knowledge, 2 and the injury the sale of her home would cause. At this time, Plaintiff cannot show that she is 3 likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. 4 The basis of the amended complaint appears to be fraud surrounding the original 5 transaction and the alleged failure to honor Plaintiff’s notice of recession. As explained in the 6 Court’s order dismissing the complaint, there is a one-year statute of limitations period in which 7 an action for damages may be filed under TILA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e); Beach v. Ocwen 8 Federal Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412 (1998). A RESPA claim brought under 12 U.S.C. § 2605 is 9 subject to a three year statute of limitations period and RESPA claims brought under 12 U.S.C. § 10 2607 and § 2608 are subject to a one year statute of limitations. According to the complaint, 11 Defendants made false statements to Plaintiff that caused her to refinance a loan and sign a deed 12 of trust against the Property in 2006. Plaintiff alleges her attempts to rescind the loan in 2006 13 and possibly 2007 were not honored. This action was not filed until 2012. 14 complaint makes allegations concerning equitable tolling based on Plaintiff’s medical history and 15 Plaintiff’s inability to litigate matters concerning the loan in 2007 and 2008. However, Plaintiff 16 is still not likely to succeed on the merits of her claims because of the statute of limitations. 17 Even if the Court were to find several years of equitable tolling appropriate, Plaintiff’s claims 18 concerning the original loan transaction and the rescission are still bared by the statute of 19 limitations. 20 The amended The Court notes that the exhibits attached to the motion for a temporary restraining order 21 appear to attempt to broaden Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiffs’ exhibits imply Plaintiff believes 22 Defendants also do not have ownership of the note at issue because they can neither produce the 23 original note signed by Plaintiff nor prove they own the note. As these claims are not contained 24 in the amended complaint, they cannot serve as a basis for a temporary restraining order. See 25 Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968) (Because the federal court is a court of limited 26 jurisdiction, the court must have before it a case or controversy). Because the complaint in this 27 case does not contain allegations raising issues similar to those presented in the many of the 28 exhibits, there is no controversy present with respect to such issues and the Court cannot address 3 1 either the likelihood of success on the merits or whether there are serious questions going to the 2 merits of additional claims. 3 The factors the Court must consider when ruling on a motion for a temporary restraining 4 order also side against Plaintiff. At this time, the balance of equities favor Defendants, not 5 Plaintiff. The last temporary restraining order set by the Court in this case expired over six 6 months ago. While an amended complaint was filed, no additional motions to preclude any sale 7 were filed until May 1, 2013. The Court does recognize that not granting Plaintiff a restraining 8 order may result in drastic personal ramifications. However, given all evidence before the Court 9 indicates Plaintiff is in default and Plaintiff has now been given adequate notice, the Court 10 simply cannot grant Plaintiff’s request. Thus, the Court has no choice but to deny Plaintiff’s 11 motion. 12 ORDER 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that: 14 1. The stay that had been issued in this action is now lifted; 15 2. Plaintiff’s letter of protest, which has been termed a motion for a preliminary 16 17 18 injunction is DENIED; and; 3. The Court will issue an order regarding the pending motion to dismiss shortly. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: 0m8i78 May 3, 2013 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?