Harris v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development et al
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/23/2014 DENYING 21 Motion for TRO. (Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
CHRIS HARRIS,
13
16
17
18
2:14-cv-01769 JAM AC
Plaintiff,
14
15
No.
v.
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT OF WASHINGTON, D.C.,
HIS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS; THAO
PHAM, an individual; MIGUEL A.
UGARTE, an individual; MID VALLEY
MORTGAGE SERVICES INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1
through 30,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Chris Harris’
23
(“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
24
(“TRO”) (Doc. #21). 1
25
behalf of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
26
(“Defendant” or “HUD”), filed an opposition (Doc. #23).
Defendant United States of America, on
For the
27
1
28
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). No hearing was scheduled.
1
1
reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s application for a TRO is
2
DENIED.
3
4
I.
OPINION
5
A.
Legal Standard
6
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 provides authority to
7
issue either preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining
8
orders.
9
demonstrate that it is “[1] likely to succeed on the merits,
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
10
[2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
11
of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in
12
his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.”
13
Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052
14
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 129
15
S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).
16
restraining order are the same.
17
John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001).
18
TRO is an emergency measure, intended to preserve the status quo
19
pending a fuller hearing on the injunctive relief requested, and
20
the irreparable harm must therefore be clearly immediate.
21
R. Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1).
The requirements for a temporary
Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v.
A
Fed.
22
B.
Analysis
23
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s application for a TRO, the Court
24
concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of
25
success on the merits.
26
that, even if a HUD employee made an oral promise to sell
27
Plaintiff the property at a reduced price, such a promise would
28
be enforceable.
Specifically, Plaintiff has not shown
Under the relevant guidelines, the “list price”
2
1
or “asking price” for a property to be resold by HUD must be
2
“based upon an appraisal conducted by an independent real estate
3
appraiser using nationally recognized industry standards for the
4
appraisal of residential property.”
5
is no provision in these guidelines which authorizes the downward
6
adjustment of the list price for the reason alleged by Plaintiff.
7
24 C.F.R. § 291.100.
8
be “bound by its employees’ unauthorized representations.”
9
Wagner v. Dir., Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 847 F.2d 515, 519
24 C.F.R. § 291.100.
There
Generally, a governmental agency will not
10
(9th Cir. 1988); see also Teitelbaum v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. &
11
Urban Dev., 953 F. Supp. 326, 331 (D. Nev. 1996) (holding that an
12
oral promise in contradiction of regulatory procedures was
13
insufficient to support a claim against HUD).
14
has failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the
15
merits of his claims against HUD.
16
application for a TRO is DENIED.
17
motion to dismiss (Doc. #6) and motion to remand (Doc. #7)
18
pending before Magistrate Judge Claire.
Thus, Plaintiff
For this reason, Plaintiff’s
This Order does not affect the
19
20
II.
21
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
22
23
24
ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2014
25
26
27
28
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?