Hobbs et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 52

ORDER VACATING PRIOR ORDER AND GRANTING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND SETTING HEARING ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 12/20/2012 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/4/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12
13
14
15
16

TRACEY HOBBS AND RODNEY HOBBS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

No. C 12-4060 RS
ORDER VACATING PRIOR ORDER
AND GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER, AND SETTING HEARING
ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

17
Earlier this date, an order issued denying plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining
18
order to preclude a foreclosure sale of the subject property from going forward as currently
19
scheduled on December 13, 2012. That order was based on an incorrect understanding that
20
plaintiffs had failed to respond to a prior order to explain their apparent delay in seeking relief.
21
Plaintiffs in fact filed a timely and adequate declaration indicating that they had not previously
22
moved for injunctive relief because they believed extrajudicial efforts to resolve the matter were
23
progressing. Accordingly, the order denying the application for temporary restraining order (Dkt.
24
No. 51) is vacated.
25
In circumstances not meaningfully distinguishable from those shown on the present record
26
here, injunctive relief has previously been granted to prevent foreclosure sales from going forward
27
during the pendency of actions. See, e.g., Osorio v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 1909335
28

1

(N.D.Cal. 2012). Defendant Wells Fargo urges that Osorio was wrongly decided, and offers

2

additional authority and analysis to support its contention that California Civil Code §2923.5 is

3

preempted by federal regulations issued under the Home Owners Loan Act (“HOLA”).

4

While Wells Fargo has offered a more nuanced argument than that addressed in Osorio,

5

plaintiffs’ showing is sufficient to warrant issuance of a temporary restraining order under all the

6

circumstances. Accordingly, defendants are hereby enjoined from proceeding with a trustee’s sale

7

of the subject property pending a decision on the possible issuance of a preliminary injunction. A

8

hearing on a preliminary injunction will be held on December 20, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom

9

3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.
Plaintiffs may, but are not required to, file any further papers in support of a preliminary injunction

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

no later than December 10, 2012, and defendants may file a response thereto no later than December

12

17, 2012.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: 12/4/12

17

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2