Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
Filing
4
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 04/27/17 ORDERING that plaintiff's 3 Motion for TRO is DENIED without prejudice. (Benson, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN LAMAR JENKINS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
No. 2:17-cv-00878-TLN-KJN
ORDER
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,
15
Defendant.
16
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a motion for a temporary restraining order
17
18
(“TRO”) filed by Plaintiff John Lamar Jenkins (“Plaintiff”). (Mot. for TRO, ECF No. 3.) Due to
19
deficiencies in Plaintiff’s submissions it is not clear whether the motion was filed ex parte, but the
20
TRO checklist filed in connection with the motion suggests that was Plaintiff’s intent. (See ECF
21
No. 3-1 at 2.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
22
23
24
25
26
27
///
28
///
1
1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2
On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint. (ECF No. 1.) He alleges as follows:
3
“JP Morgan Chase Bank engaged in Mortgage Fraud: The
Securitization Scheme that Collapsed the Housing Market. JP
Morgan Chase Bank even admitted in November of 2013 that it,
along with every other large US bank had engage [sic] in mortgage
fraud as a routine business practice, sowing the seeds of the
mortgage meltdown. JP Morgan knowingly put me into a . . . ‘Bad
Loan’ that spiked my interest rate by 6%. They also placed me into
an area that is upside down and underwater (meaning the balanced
[sic] owed exceeds the current value of the home[)].
4
5
6
7
8
(ECF No. 1 at 5.)
9
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on the same day. (ECF No. 3.) He indicates that a home
10
he owns “is currently in active foreclosure” with a “sell date” of May 17, 2017. (ECF No. 3-1 at
11
1–2.) He seeks a court order halting any foreclosure or eviction proceedings. (ECF No. 3 at 1.)
12
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
13
The same legal standard applies to both preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining
14
orders. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001),
15
overruled on other grounds, Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).
16
Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
17
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citing Mazurek v.
18
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)).
19
Plaintiff must show four things to receive a preliminary injunction or temporary
20
restraining order. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. First, Plaintiff must show that he is likely to suffer
21
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Id. Second, Plaintiff must show that he is
22
likely to succeed on the merits. Id. Third, Plaintiff must show that the balance of equities tips in
23
his favor. Id. Finally, Plaintiff must show that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. Plaintiff
24
must “make a showing on all four prongs” of Winter to obtain a preliminary injunction. Alliance
25
for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In the Ninth Circuit, courts
26
apply a sliding-scale approach. Id. Under this approach, a preliminary injunction may issue
27
where Plaintiff has raised “serious questions on the merits” — rather than a more complete
28
showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits — so long as the balance of hardships tips
2
1
sharply in his favor and he satisfies the other two Winter prongs. Id.
2
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion fails both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, Plaintiff has
3
4
not complied with Eastern District Local Rule 231, which governs temporary restraining orders.
5
Rule 231 requires, among other things, that the party seeking a temporary restraining order file
6
the following documents with the Court:
7
(1) a complaint; (2) a motion for temporary restraining order; (3) a
brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the motion; (4) an
affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury; (5) an
affidavit detailing the notice or efforts to effect notice to the
affected parties or counsel or showing good cause why notice
should not be given . . .; (6) a proposed temporary restraining order
with a provision for a bond . . .; (7) a proposed order with blanks
for fixing the time and date for hearing a motion for preliminary
injunction, the date for filing the responsive papers, the amount of
the bond, if any, and the date and hour of issuance . . .; and (8) in all
instances in which a temporary restraining order is requested ex
parte, the proposed order shall further notify the affected party of
the right to apply to the Court for modification or dissolution on
two (2) days’ notice or such shorter notice as the Court may allow.”
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
L.R. 231(c). Plaintiff has only submitted the first two items and has therefore failed to
15
satisfy Local Rule 231. His motion may be denied on that ground alone. See Holcomb v.
16
California Bd. of Psychology, No. 2:15-cv-02154-KJM-CKD, 2015 WL 7430625, at *3 (E.D.
17
18
Cal. Nov. 23, 2015) (indicating the Court had previously denied “plaintiff’s motion without
prejudice for failure to provide the required documents in compliance with Local Rule 231(c)”).
19
Substantively, Plaintiff’s motion also falls short. Plaintiff has filed a two sentence motion
20
containing no legal analysis and has filed no brief in support. As a consequence, he has not raised
21
serious questions on the merits, let alone shown a likelihood of success. It follows that he cannot
22
“make a showing on all four prongs” of Winter. Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135.
23
The Court need not analyze each prong of Winter where Plaintiff clearly cannot carry his burden.
24
Martin v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01860-TLN-KJN, 2016 WL 4211520, at
25
*5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016). In short, Plaintiff has not satisfied Winter and his motion must be
26
denied.
27
28
///
3
1
2
3
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF
No. 3) is hereby DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: April 27, 2017
7
8
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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?