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)

Download PDF
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?