Brooks v. Bank of America
Filing
5
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/12/2017 DENYING 3 Motion for TRO. (Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIMOTHY BRYAN BROOKS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-01430-TLN-EFB
v.
ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
BANK OF AMERICA,
15
Defendant.
16
17
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
18
Order (“TRO”). (ECF No. 3.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
19
I.
INTRODUCTION
20
Plaintiff describes an underlying dispute resulting from a $19,873.00 deposit made into
21
Plaintiff’s account at one of Defendant’s branch banks in Georgia. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff
22
states that he was at work in California at the time and denies knowledge of the transaction,
23
which Defendant viewed as suspicious and cancelled. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that his
24
“14th Amendment rights have been trampled on by the [D]efendant in that Plaintiff received no
25
fair procedural process before the bank closed Plaintiff’s business checking/savings and refused
26
to return money in the account.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff states that he had $752.73 in his
27
account when Defendant closed it. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant submitted
28
Plaintiff’s name to “Check Systems” and “shut down” Plaintiff’s business. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)
1
1
On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed his TRO requesting that the Court order Defendant to
2
“remove Plaintiff’s personal name and business name from Chex Systems, immediately.” (ECF
3
No. 3 at 1.) He would like Defendant to return money from his account to him. (ECF No. 3 at 3.)
4
II.
5
LEGAL STANDARD
Eastern District Local Rule 231 governs temporary restraining orders and requires,
6
among other things, that the party seeking the order file 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).
15
16
III.
DISCUSSION
17
Plaintiff has not filed all of the required items and so has not complied with Local Rule
18
231. Plaintiff has not filed required items (E)(4)–(7) on the TRO checklist, including affidavits
19
and proposed orders. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) See Holcomb v. California Bd. of Psychology, No. 2:15-
20
cv-02154-KJM-CKD, 2015 WL 7430625, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015) (indicating the Court
21
had previously denied “plaintiff’s motion without prejudice for failure to provide the required
22
documents in compliance with Local Rule 231(c)”).
23
24
25
26
27
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.
Dated: July 12, 2017
28
2
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?