Satre et al v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC et al

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/27/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
RODRICK I. SATRE, and BONITA
SATRE DALEY,

No. C 12-6548 JSW

12
PlaintiffS,
13

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
14
15
16
17

ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

18
19
20

On December 27, 2012, plaintiffs filed a complaint that requests the relief of a “temporary

21

restraining order.” That same day, plaintiffs filed a document captioned as “temporary restraining

22

order and preliminary injunction.” That document contains what appears to be a draft proposed

23

order granting a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants “from selling, attempting to sell,

24

or causing to be sold the property” that is the subject of the complaint. While plaintiffs may desire

25

to make a motion for a temporary restraining order, they have not properly filed the documents that

26

would allow them to obtain one. If plaintiffs desire to file a motion, they must follow the civil local

27

rules of the Northern District of California, available on the Court’s website at

28

www.cand.uscourts.gov/localrules/civil. Among other things, plaintiffs must accompany the motion
NO. C 12-6548-JSW
ORDER

1

with a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and any other documents in

2

support of the motion that they would like to have considered. Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary

3

restraining order is denied without prejudice for failure to conform to the local rules.

4

Even if plaintiffs had followed the local rules, their request for a temporary restraining order

5

would still be denied because no foreclosure sale has been scheduled, and hence there is no apparent

6

risk of irreparable injury. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-24 (2008).

7

The complaint avers that a representative of First American Trustee Servicing Solutions confirmed

8

to plaintiffs on December 19, 2012, that “a forceclosure was ‘in the works’ . . . but that the sale for

9

January 10, 2013 was cancelled.” Without an imminent scheduled sale, there is no ground for the

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

issuance of a temporary restraining order.
Plaintiffs may refile a new motion for injunctive relief if they so choose. As the Satres are

12

representing themselves, the pro se Legal Help Center is available to assist them in making sure they

13

are able to follow the appropriate rules in filing any future motions. The Legal Help Center is

14

located in room 2796 on the 15th Floor of the United States Courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Avenue

15

in San Francisco. An appointment with the Legal Help Center may be made by calling 415-782-

16

9000 x8657. Additional resources for pro se litigants can be found at

17

www.cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: 12/27/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 12-06548-JSW
ORDER

2