Sosa v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.

Filing 29

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 14 Motion for Permanent Injunction.(lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
MARIA G. SOSA,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 12-00144 LB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

13
BANKOF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST,

[ECF No. 14]

14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16

On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff Maria G. Sosa filed an ex parte application for a temporary

17

restraining order to enjoin Defendant Bank of New York Mellon Trust from proceeding with a

18

foreclosure sale scheduled for February 3, 2012. Application for a Temporary Restraining Order,

19

ECF No. 13 at 1-2.1 Sosa also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Motion for a Preliminary

20

Injunction, ECF No. 14 at 1-2. On February 2, 2012, with both parties in attendance, the court

21

conducted a hearing on Sosas’s application for a temporary restraining order. The court granted

22

Sosa’s application for a temporary restraining order because she raised serious questions on the

23

merits and the balance of equities tipped in her favor, and the other elements required for injunctive

24

relief were satisfied. Order, ECF No. 17.

25

The standards for a temporary restraining order mirror that for a preliminary injunction. See

26

Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 12-00144 LB
ORDER

1

Here, Defendant reiterates the arguments it made in opposition to Sosa’s application for a temporary

2

restraining order. The only new wrinkle is that Defendant submits a revised affidavit from Sosa’s

3

loan servicer, now includes copies of the letters that it allegedly sent. Lara Decl., ECF No. 22-2.

4

Again, while probative, the affidavit and its attachments do not establish that there are no factual

5

disputes regarding Defendant’s compliance with the requirements of section 2923.5. For example,

6

neither the declaration nor exhibits establish that the letters were sent via certified mail as required

7

by the statute.

8

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Sosa’s application for a preliminary injunction.

9

Defendant, as well as its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who

foreclosing on 475 Bell Street, East Palo Alto, California until the court issues a case-dispositive

12
For the Northern District of California

are in active concert or participation with them, is enjoined from conducting a deed of trust sale of or

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

ruling or otherwise lifts the injunction.

13

Sosa is required to post a bond of $3,000 per month. The bond must be posted on the first of

14

each month. If Sosa fails to post any of the bonds, the preliminary injunction will expire. Local

15

Civil Rule 65-1.1 sets forth the requirements for posting a bond.

16

This disposes of ECF No. 14.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: March 27, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 12-00144 LB
ORDER

2