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)

Download PDF
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?