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