Bouyer et al v. IndyMac Bank et al

Filing 6

ORDER RE: 1 , 3 DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 07/30/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2010)

Bouyer et al v. IndyMac Bank et al

Doc. 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*E-Filed 07/30/2010*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MITCHELL E. BOUYER, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 10-3351 RS DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v.

INDYMAC BANK, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ Plaintiffs Mitchell and Martha Bouyer filed their Complaint on July 30, 2010 alleging, among others, violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq ("TILA") and its implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R. § 226 et seq. ("Regulations Z"). Plaintiffs have filed a document requesting a temporary restraining order ("TRO") enjoining defendants from conducting a trustee's sale of plaintiff's property, which the Bouyers represent is scheduled to take place in less than two hours on July 30, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. The plaintiffs' have certified that the application was either mailed or faxed to representatives of defendants HSBC Bank, Indymac Federal Bank, and MERS on July 30, 2010. Although they advance eight claims for relief, the Bouyers do not include a factual section. Accordingly, while it is obvious from the papers that the Bouyers entered into some sort of loan with the named defendants, they have not in any way described the loan's terms, the date on which it was entered or what, if any, of defendants' actions gave rise to the TILA rescission right alleged.
NO. C 10-00805 RS ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Accordingly, plaintiffs' papers provide an inadequate factual or legal basis to grant the relief requested and no explanation for why relief could not have been sought at an earlier time when more meaningful review would have been possible. Although a foreclosure proceeding certainly presents the possibility for irreparable harm, plaintiffs have provided virtually no facts from which even a serious question going to the merits could be ascertained. Based on these papers and this record, the request for a Temporary Restraining Order must be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Date: 07/30/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NO. C 10-03351 RS ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

2