Patel v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 5 Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 CHETANN PATEL and HARSHIKA PATEL, 7 8 9 10 Plaintiffs, Case No.: 13-CV-01625 YGR ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER vs. U.S. BANK, N.A. et al., Defendant(s). Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 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 Restraining Order. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that actual notice must be given to 17 the opposing party of the intention to seek a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), the date and 18 time for the hearing and the nature of the relief requested. Unless notice is provided, the moving 19 party must provide a certified showing of extraordinary circumstances why such notice could not 20 have been given. Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2006). 21 Here, the Court has not been provided with any declaration showing why such notice could not have 22 been given. A TRO is a drastic remedy and accordingly can only be given under proper 23 circumstances. 24 Therefore, the Motion is DENIED. 25 This Order Terminates Docket Number 5. 26 27 28 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?