Schneider v. Bank of America N.A et al
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/1/11: Hearing re 9 MOTION for a preliminary injunction SET for 1/17/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff SHALL file a motion for preliminary injunction in accordance with Local Rule 231(d) by December 19, 2011. Defendants SHALL file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, in accordance with Local Rule 231(d), by January 3, 2012, or not at all. Plaintiff SHALL file a reply to Defendants' opposition, in accordance with Local Rule 231(d), on January 10, 2012. The Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect through the hearing on January 17, 2012. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER,
NO. CIV. S-11-2953 LKK/DAD PS
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
O R D E R
16
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., BANK
OF AMERICA MORTGAGE, BANK
OF AMERICA HOME LOANS
SERVICING LP, BALBOA
INSURANCE CO., HOME RETENTION
GROUP, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORP., CLIFF COLER, DOES 1-40,
17
Defendants.
13
14
15
/
18
19
Plaintiff
Christopher
Schneider,
pro
se,
was
granted
a
20
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) to prevent Defendants Bank of
21
America, N.A., et al., from foreclosing on Plaintiff’s property
22
located at 16291 Stone Jug Rd., Sutter Creek, CA 95688. Order, ECF
23
No. 12 (Nov. 17, 2011).
24
December 1, 2011, at 5 PM.
The TRO was set to expire on Thursday,
Id.
25
Plaintiff has requested that this court issue an Order to Show
26
Cause to Defendants as to why a preliminary injunction should not
1
1
be issued against them.
2
Pls’ Appl., ECF No. 16 (Nov. 29, 2011).
The court hereby sets a hearing on Plaintiff’s application for
3
a preliminary injunction on January 17, 2012, at 10:00 A.M.
4
Although the court, in its order granting a TRO, referred all
5
further pretrial proceedings to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd,
6
pursuant
request
for
7
injunctive relief must be heard by a District Court Judge.
The
8
hearing for the preliminary injunction shall therefore be before
9
the District Court Judge in this matter.
to
Local
Rule
302(c)(3),
Plaintiff’s
10
Although Plaintiff has applied for an Order to Show Cause as
11
to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued against
12
Defendants, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for a preliminary
13
injunction with the requisite accompanying brief required by Local
14
Rule
15
preliminary injunction in accordance with Local Rule 231(d) by
16
December
17
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, in accordance with
18
Local Rule 231(d), by January 3, 2012, or not at all.
19
shall file a reply to Defendants’ opposition, in accordance with
20
Local Rule 231(d), on January 10, 2012.
21
231(d).
19,
Plaintiff
2011.
shall
Defendants
therefore
shall
file
file
an
a
motion
opposition
for
to
Plaintiff
The court finds that good cause exists to extend the TRO to
22
allow adequate time for briefing on the motion in this case.
See
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).
24
therefore remain in effect through the hearing on January 17, 2012.
25
////
26
////
The Temporary Restraining Order shall
2
1
Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:
2
[1] A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
3
injunction is SET for January 17, 2012 at 10:00 A.M.
4
[2]
5
injunction in accordance with Local Rule 231(d) by
6
December 19, 2011.
7
to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, in
8
accordance with Local Rule 231(d), by January 3, 2012,
9
or
Plaintiff
not
at
SHALL
all.
file
a
motion
for
preliminary
Defendants SHALL file an opposition
Plaintiff
SHALL
file
a
reply
to
10
Defendants’ opposition, in accordance with Local Rule
11
231(d), on January 10, 2012.
12
[3] The Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in
13
effect through the hearing on January 17, 2012.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
DATED:
December 1, 2011.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?