California Valley Miwok Tribe et al v. San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/18/2013 DENYING 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

THE CALIFORNIA VALLEY MIWOK
TRIBE, a federally recognized
Indian Tribe, and SILVA
BURLEY, in her official
capacity as Chairwoman,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:13-cv-02179-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE; SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
SHERIFF STEVE MOORE, in his
official capacity; INDYMAC
BANK, F.S.B., a federally
chartered savings bank;
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as trustee of the
IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan
Trust 2007-AR3, Mortgage Pass
Through Certificates, Series
2007-AR3; ONEWEST BANK, a
federally chartered savings
bank; and MERIDIAN
FORECLOSURE SERVICE, a
California corporation, dba
Meridian Trust Deed Service,

21

Defendants.

22
23

On

Friday,

October

18,

2013,

at

approximately

2:14

24

p.m., Plaintiffs filed an “Ex Parte Emergency Application and

25

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,” (ECF No. 2), to enjoin

26

the foreclosure sale of the property located at 10601 Escondido

27

Place in Stockton, California, which is scheduled to occur in

28

three days, on Monday, October 21, 2013. (See Decl. of Silvia
1

1

Bu
urley ¶ 7, ECF No 2-3.)
7
o.

2

Local Ru
ule 231(b prescr
b)
ribes:

3

Timing of Motion In co
o
n.
onsiderin a moti
ng
ion for
a tempor
rary rest
training order, the Cour will
rt
consider whethe
r
er the applican
nt could have
d
sought relief by mot
tion fo
or preli
iminary
injuncti
ion at an earl ier date withou
e
ut the
necessit for seeking last-min
ty
s
nute relief by
motion
for
temporary
y
restra
aining
order.
Should the Cou
urt find that the app
d
plicant
unduly delayed in seeki
ing inju
unctive r
relief,
the Co
ourt may concl ude tha
y
at the delay
constitu
utes
la
aches
or
con
ntradicts
s
the
applican
nt's alle
egations of irre
eparable injury
and may deny the moti
y
ion sole
ely on either
ground.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Here, Plaintiff Silvia Burley
P
f
a

avers that “th
he Tribe
e

12

re
eceived Notice of Defau
o
ult and Election to Sel Under Deed of
n
ll
f

13

Tr
rust” on June 30 2013. (Burley Decl. ¶ 6.) Ms. Burley further
0,
y
r

14

de
eclares that “the Tribe received a Notic of Tr
t
d
ce
rustee’s Sale” on
n

15

Se
eptember 25, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 7.) However Plain
)
r,
ntiffs pr
rovide no
o

16

ex
xplanatio regard
on
ding why they de
y
elayed i seekin to en
in
ng
njoin the
e

17

im
mpending

foreclo
osure

18

sc
cheduled

auction
n.

19

un
nexcused delay in seekin injunc
ng
ctive rel
lief con
nstitutes laches,
s
,

20

an Plain
nd
ntiffs’ ex parte applica
e
ation fo a TRO is DEN
or
O
NIED. See
e

21

Ma
ammoth Sp
pecialty Lodging, LLC v. WE-KA-J
,
JASSA Inv Fund, LLC, No.
v.
.

22

CI S-10-0
IV
0864 LKK/
/JFM, 201 WL 15 39811, a *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16,
10
at
,

23

20
010) (de
enying mo
otion fo
or TRO t
to enjoi
in forec
closure w
when the
e

24

pl
laintiff delayed in bring
ging moti
ion).

25

Da
ated:

un
ntil

There
efore,

the
e
t he

Oc
ctober 18 2013
8,

26
27
28
2

Friday
y

aftern
noon

bef
fore

the
e

Court
t

conclu
udes

Pla
aintiffs’
’