Brosnan v. Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems Inc. et al

Filing 7

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 4 Motion for TRO (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/3/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JOHN BROSNAN, Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ Plaintiff John Brosnan filed this action on January 28, 2009, against defendants Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc.; American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.; American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Default Services, Inc.; American Brokers Conduit; and American Home Mortgage, alleging claims under federal and state law. Also on January 28, 2009, plaintiff filed an application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") seeking to prevent defendant American Home Mortgage, or defendant American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Default Services, Inc., from conducting a foreclosure sale of property located at 3279 Mt. Diablo Court #32, Lafayette, California, 94579. The court finds that the application for the TRO must be DENIED for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the Civil Local Rules of this court. To date, plaintiff has filed no proof of service of the summons and complaint on any defendant. Nor has he filed an affidavit or verified complaint that sets forth "specific facts . . . clearly show[ing] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the No. C 09-0401 PJH ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; or a written certification of the "efforts made to give service and the reasons why it should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). The application for the TRO is further deficient because it was not accompanied by a proposed order in the form set forth in Civil Local Rule 65-1(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2009 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2