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)

Download PDF
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

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?