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)

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