Stricklen et al v. Bayview Servicing et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/20/2017 DENYING 7 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff's 8 Amended Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions is REFERRED to the Assigned Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. (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 se Plaintiffs seek to enjoin a trustee sale of

13
14

their property scheduled for August 2, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed

15

what

for

16

restraining order (“TRO”) on July 19, 2017.

17

for a TRO was denied since it did not “show[] that Defendants

18

ha[d] been notified about the request” as required by Federal

19

Rule

20

Plaintiffs’ present request for a TRO also fails to prove that

21

Defendants received the required notice that a TRO is sought.

they

of

characterize

Civil

as

Procedure

an

amended

65.

motion

Order

a

temporary

A previous request

2:1–16,

ECF

No.

6.

22

“A temporary restraining order is a provisional remedy

23

intended to ‘preserv[e] the status quo and prevent[] irreparable

24

harm

25

injunction] hearing, and no longer.’”

26

No. 2:13-cv-00697-GEB-DAD, 2013 WL 1500450, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr.

27

10, 2013) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting

28

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439

just

so

long

as

is

necessary

1

to

hold

a

[preliminary

Woo v. Flagstar Bank, FSB,

1

(1974)).

2

demonstrate ‘immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage’”

3

prior to a duly noticed preliminary injunction hearing.

4

v. City of Escondido, 465 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1049 (S.D. Cal. 2006)

5

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

6

that a TRO is necessary before they can have a duly noticed

7

hearing on a preliminary injunction scheduled, Plaintiffs’ motion

8

for a TRO, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.

“As

such,

an

applicant

for

a

TRO

is

required

to

Garrett

Since Plaintiffs have not shown

9

Furthermore, the motion Plaintiffs characterize as an

10

Amended Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions, ECF

11

No. 8, is referred to the assigned magistrate judge under Local

12

Rule 302(c)(21).

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

July 20, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2