Stricklen et al v. Bayview Servicing et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/13/2017 DENYING 2 Motion for TRO. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ERIC and HARRIET STRICKLEN

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

No. 2:17-cv-1446-GEB-EFB

v.

ORDER

BAYVIEW SERVICING, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
Pro

13

se

2017,

a

seeking

temporary

16

[sic] taking control of” Plaintiff’s real property in Fairfield,

17

California (“the Property”).

18

Plaintiff makes a conclusory argument that the issuance of a TRO

19

is

to

have

20

Complaint.”

21

that Defendants have failed to satisfy procedural requirements

22

applicable to the foreclosure proceeding at issue, and Plaintiff

23

indicates that Defendants intend to sell the Property on August

24

2, 2017.

25

alleges in the Complaint that the sale will “cause great and

26

irreparable injury” because the Property “will be sold without

27

warning”.

Mot. for TRO 1:23–2:2, ECF No. 2.

grounds

Id. at 2:5–6.

12,

for

Defendants enjoined from selling, foreclosing on, “or in anyway

the

July

motion

15

“on

on

a

restraining

justified

(“TRO”)

filed

14

28

order

Plaintiff

set

forth

in

the

accompanying

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint

Compl. 3:5–28, 4:11–13, ECF No. 1.

Plaintiff also

Id. at 4:2.
Plaintiff has not shown entitlement to consideration of
1

1

the sought after injunctive relief since Plaintiff has not shown

2

that Defendants have been notified about the request.

3

Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) prescribes that a TRO may issue

4

“without . . .

5

if” the movant avers “specific facts . . . clearly show[ing] that

6

immediate and irreparable injury . . . will result to the movant

7

before

8

“certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the

9

reasons why it should not be required.”

the

Federal

notice to the adverse party or its attorney only

adverse

added).

party

can

Plaintiff’s

be

heard

in

opposition”

and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)

10

(emphasis

11

referenced

12

“specific

13

suffer

14

[Defendants] can be heard in opposition [to the sought TRO].”

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

16

a TRO is denied.

17

Dated:

averments.

Further,

facts . . . clearly
“immediate

and

motion

does

Plaintiff

show[ing]”
irreparable

not
has

that

contain
not

the

averred

Plaintiff

will

injury . . . before

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for

July 13, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2