Cruz et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association et al
Filing
17
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 3 PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
ARMIE CUA CRUZ; and FLORO LORENZO
CRUZ, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as successor in
interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL
BANK F.A.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION; CALIFORNIA
RECONVEYANCE COMPANY; and DOES
1-100,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’
EMERGENCY EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE (Docket No.
3)
Defendants.
12
13
No. C 12-3219 CW
________________________________/
On June 20, 2012, Plaintiffs Armie Cua Cruz and Floro Lorenzo
Cruz, Jr. filed an emergency ex parte application for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs seek to
prevent Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association
(Chase), its agents, employees, successors, attorneys and all
persons in active concert and participation with it “from engaging
or performing in any act to deprive Plaintiff [sic] of their
residence in and possession of the real property at 23 Pinnacle
Street, South San Francisco, CA 94080, including an unlawful writ
of possession and eviction scheduled for next Thursday, June 21,
2012.”
Mot. at 1-2.
On June 21, 2012, the Court issued an order finding that
Plaintiffs had not make a sufficient showing to obtain an ex parte
temporary restraining order.
The Court set a briefing schedule,
requiring Chase to file a response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a
1
temporary restraining order by 12:00 p.m. three court days after
2
it has been served with certain documents and permitting
3
Plaintiffs to file a reply by 12:00 p.m. the following court day.
4
On June 29, 2012, Chase and Defendant California Reconveyance
5
Company filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion.
6
among other things, that Plaintiffs’ motion is moot because Chase
7
had obtained possession of the property on June 21, 2012.
8
Decl. ¶ 49.
9
They argue,
Naiman
Plaintiffs have not filed a reply or challenged Defendants’
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
argument that their motion is moot.
11
longer in possession of the property, Plaintiffs’ request for
12
injunctive relief preventing Chase “from engaging in or performing
13
any act to deprive Plaintiff of their residence in and possession
14
of” the property is moot.
Because Plaintiffs are no
15
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary
16
restraining order and order to show cause for preliminary
17
injunctive relief is DENIED (Docket No. 3).
18
properly noticed motion for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to
19
Civil Local Rules 65-2 and 7-2.
20
Plaintiffs may file a
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
Dated: July 5, 2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
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?