Linda C. Reed v. Wilmington Trust, National Association et al

Filing 16

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 2, 2016. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LINDA C. REED,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., et al.,

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINIG ORDER
Re: Docket No. 11

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01933-JSW

12
13

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

14

OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON May 4, 2016,

15

AT 10:00 a.m.:

16

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

17

reargue matters addressed in those briefs. Except as otherwise noted, the parties shall not file

18

written responses to this Notice of Questions for hearing. If the parties intend to rely on legal

19

authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel

20

of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies of those authorities

21

available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to

22

submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites but without argument or additional

23

briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

24

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

25
26
27
28

The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be
permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained herein.
1.

Although Plaintiff briefly addresses the issue of irreparable harm, she does not

address the issues of balance of the equities or the public interest. What is Plaintiffs’ best

1

arg
gument that these latter two factors weigh in her favor? Plai
t
w
intiff shall a
address this question in
s
n

2

the reply brief due on Ma 3, 2016, at 10:00 a.m What is D
e
f
ay
a
m.
Defendants’ b argume that
best
ent

3

Pla
aintiff has no met her bu
ot
urden to show irreparabl harm, and that the latter two factor do not
w
le
rs

4

we
eigh in Plaint
tiffs’ favor?

5

2.

If the Court were to gran Plaintiff’s application what is her position on the amount
nt
s
n,
n
t

6

of bond that sh
b
hould be imp
posed? Plain
ntiff shall ad
ddress this q
question in the reply brief due on

7

Ma 3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
ay
a

8
9

3.

dismiss that r
raises many of the same arguments
Defendants have filed a motion to d

tha are raised in their oppo
at
i
osition to Pla
aintiffs’ appl
lication for a temporary restraining o
order, but
the have not yet re-noticed that motio on this Co
ey
y
on
ourt’s calend
dar. Would D
Defendants b willing to
be
o

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

gra a postpon
ant
nement of th trustee’s sale so that th Court cou address t motion to dismiss
he
he
uld
the
o

12

bef
fore any such sale occurs The Cour would be able to cons
h
s?
rt
sider that mo
otion on Frid June 3,
day,

13

201 at 9:00 a.m., and it would require Plaintiff to file her opp
16
w
e
position by M 13, 2016 and
May
6,

14

De
efendant’s reply would be due on Ma 20, 2016. If the Cour were able to resolve th motion
ay
rt
he

15

wit
thout a heari it would notify the parties in adv
ing,
d
p
vance of the hearing date.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: May 2, 2016
,

18
19
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2