Hrdina v. World Savings Bank, FSB et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND VACATING HEARING by Hon. William Alsup denying 52 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GEORGE HRDINA, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 11-05173 WHA Plaintiff, v. 16 WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank, Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB; and DOES 1 through 6, inclusive, 17 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND VACATING HEARING Defendants. 14 15 / 18 19 In this foreclosure action, pro se plaintiff George Hrdina moves for a temporary 20 restraining order to enjoin defendants from continuing with foreclosure proceedings. For the 21 reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED and the 22 hearing scheduled for August 9 is VACATED. 23 Plaintiff filed this action in August 2011 claiming fraud, breach of contract, and TILA 24 violations. In January 2012, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in 25 part. Now, plaintiff’s remaining claims are for TILA violations for failure to clearly and 26 conspicuously inform plaintiff of the interest rates upon which the payment schedule was based 27 and the possibility of negative amortization. 28 1 To prevail on a temporary restraining order, plaintiff must establish that (1) they are 2 likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 3 preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction 4 is in the public interest. Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009). 5 Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden. 6 Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of imminent harm. No notice of default has notice of default is filed, California imposes waiting and redemption periods before foreclosure 9 can proceed. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2923.5(a)(1), 2924(a)(2). Plaintiff has not alleged that 10 defendants are trying to physically evict him. Plaintiff’s sole evidence of future foreclosure is a 11 For the Northern District of California been recorded against plaintiff’s property (Holt Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A). Moreover, even after a 8 United States District Court 7 “Notice of Intent to Foreclose” letter sent to plaintiff by defendants’ successor-in-interest, Wells 12 Fargo Home Mortgage, on April 12, 2012. The letter notes that plaintiff is 13 months behind on 13 his payments and that “the lender may seek foreclosure, which may result in the forced sale of 14 the property” (Dkt. No. 53 Exh. C). The letter also lists options for loan modification and 15 counseling. Again, this letter is not a notice of default, which must be filed before foreclosure 16 proceedings can begin. 17 Plaintiff has not demonstrated likely success on the merits. Plaintiff’s action is based on 18 defendants’ alleged failure to inform plaintiff about negative amortization. However, in the 19 record are agreement forms signed by plaintiff acknowledging the possibility of negative 20 amortization and explaining the consequences (Dolan Decl. Exhs. C, D, E). Plaintiff has not 21 argued that he did not understand the forms he signed. 22 23 For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED and the hearing scheduled for August 9 is VACATED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: July 23, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?