Patel v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 5 Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2013)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHETANN PATEL and HARSHIKA PATEL,
Case No.: 13-CV-01625 YGR
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
U.S. BANK, N.A. et al.,
Northern District of California
United States District Court
Plaintiffs Chetann and Harshika Patel have filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order to prevent a foreclosure sale set for April 18, 2013.
As set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that actual notice must be given to
the opposing party of the intention to seek a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), the date and
time for the hearing and the nature of the relief requested. Unless notice is provided, the moving
party must provide a certified showing of extraordinary circumstances why such notice could not
have been given. Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2006).
Here, the Court has not been provided with any declaration showing why such notice could not have
been given. A TRO is a drastic remedy and accordingly can only be given under proper
Therefore, the Motion is DENIED.
This Order Terminates Docket Number 5.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: April 17, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?