Marks v. Green Tree Servicing et al

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2010)

Marks v. Green Tree Servicing et al

Doc. 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, DEFAULT RESOLUTIONS NETWORK, et al. Defendants. / LESLIE PATRICE BARNES MARKS, Plaintiff, No. C 10-03593 SI ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On August 16, 2010, plaintiff filed the instant application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), order to show cause, and preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks to prevent defendants from proceeding with the non-judicial foreclosure of her house. Because plaintiff fails to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court DENIES her application. A temporary restraining order ("TRO") may be issued only if "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant" if the TRO does not issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). This rule requires the Court to consider the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits and the possible harm to the parties from granting or denying the injunctive relief. See Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984). The standards for issuing a TRO and a preliminary injunction are similar. See Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J., dissenting). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff has alleged five claims in her amended complaint. Each claim is based on the theory that defendants are not authorized to foreclose on her house or otherwise have failed to provide appropriate notice to plaintiff regarding her obligations and the pending foreclosure. Plaintiff has failed to cite law that supports this contention. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is DENIED. (Document 3.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2010

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2