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)

Download PDF
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

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?