Nadaf-Rahrov v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al
Filing
32
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 11/22/2016 at 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/2/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ENAYATOLLAH NADAF-RAHROV, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Case No. 16-cv-02112-RS
Case No. 16-cv-06323-RS
v.
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING,
et al.,
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER
RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Defendants.
15
16
17
The earlier-filed of these two related actions was randomly assigned to the undersigned in
18
April of this year. The second case, filed yesterday, was randomly assigned to the Honorable
19
James Donato. In light of the undersigned’s unavailability, the duty judge acted on the motion to
20
relate the two cases and granted it.
21
As the parties are aware, prior to the cases being related, an order issued requiring the
22
parties to meet and confer to attempt to negotiate an agreement for a brief postponement of the
23
pending foreclosure sale, to permit full briefing and consideration of plaintiffs’ request for
24
preliminary relief. While that order did not require the parties to reach an agreement for
25
postponement of the sale, it did require a meet and confer effort to be made in good faith. Copies
26
of email correspondence submitted by plaintiffs indicate that defendants elected simply to
27
disregard the obligation imposed by that order, and advised plaintiffs that they “decline[d] to
28
waste any more time with meeting and conferring after we were unable to reach a resolution at the
1
mediation on Monday.” As a result, plaintiffs’ applications for a temporary restraining order in
2
the two cases are ripe for decision.
3
An application for preliminary relief requires the plaintiff to “establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
5
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
6
Winter v. N.R.D.C., Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21-22 (2008). The Ninth Circuit has clarified, however, that
7
courts in this Circuit should still evaluate the likelihood of success on a “sliding scale.” Alliance
8
for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘serious questions’
9
version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after the Supreme
10
Court’s decision in Winter.”). As quoted in Cottrell, that test provides that, “[a] preliminary
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the
12
merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” provided, of
13
course, that “plaintiffs must also satisfy the other [Winter] factors” including the likelihood of
14
irreparable harm. Id. at 1135.
15
Here, the potential irreparable harm to plaintiffs arising from a foreclosure sale is manifest,
16
and the issue is whether they have made an adequate showing on the merits to warrant relief.
17
Defendants have presented compelling arguments as to the merits in both cases, and have
18
appropriately questioned plaintiffs’ failure to act more expeditiously. Nevertheless, balancing all
19
of the circumstances, a twenty-day postponement of the foreclosure sale is warranted, and
20
defendants are hereby restrained and enjoined from proceeding with the sale prior to November
21
23, 2016. In light of the entire record, no bond will be required.
22
Plaintiffs may file further papers in support of an application for a preliminary injunction
23
in either or both cases no later than November 7, 2016. Defendants may file opposition by
24
November 14, 2016. A hearing will be calendared for November 22, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., but the
25
Court reserves discretion under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) to decide the matter without oral
26
argument.
27
28
CASE NO.
2
16-cv-02112-RS
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4
5
Dated: November 2, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO.
3
16-cv-02112-RS
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?