Baldwin et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 4 Ex Parte Application For Temporary Restraining Order. (ygrlc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

VINCENT BALDWIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8

CASE NO. 18-cv-01483-YGR

vs.

9

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

10

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On March 8, 2018, plaintiffs Vincent Baldwin and Angela Zhu filed an ex parte

13

application for a temporary restraining order that would prevent the foreclosure sale of real

14

property in which they claim interest, located at 2100 Arrowhead Dr., Oakland, California, 94611.

15

(Dkt. No. 4 (“TRO Motion”); see also Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2 (“Memo ISO TRO Motion”).) According

16

to plaintiffs’ TRO Motion, the foreclosure sale is scheduled for today, March 9, 2018, at 12:00

17

p.m. (Memo ISO TRO Motion at 3.)

18

There is no showing in plaintiffs’ TRO Motion that explains why plaintiffs waited until—

19

quite literally—the eve of the foreclosure sale to seek injunctive relief. The Complaint alleges that

20

a Notice of Default was recorded nearly one year ago, on March 28, 2017, and a Notice of

21

Trustee’s Sale was recorded on July 13, 2017, which announced that the property would be subject

22

to a Trustee’s sale on August 18, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 19, 21; see also Dkt. No. 4-2 Exh. I.)

23

Nowhere in the record is there any information pertaining to a revised Notice of Trustee’s Sale

24

that set the purported current sale date of today, March 9, 2018, and “the Court [is] unable to grant

25

relief without a notice of sale or other documentation showing the trustee’s sale of the Subject

26

Property is scheduled to take place today.” Taimani v. Residential Mortg. Loan Trust 2013-TT2,

27

No. 16-cv-02992-YGR, 2016 WL 9175877, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2016). California law

28

requires that such notice of sale be given at least 20 days in advance of the sale. See Cal. Civ.

1

Code § 2924.8(a)(1). Plaintiffs do not allege there was any defect with that notice or explain why

2

they waited until the last possible moment to attempt to block the sale. The Court hereby DENIES

3

plaintiffs’ TRO Motion.1

4

This Order terminates Docket Number 4.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: March 9, 2018
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See United States Forest Serv., No. 2:13-CV-02315-GEB-AC, 2013 WL 12174044, at
*1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013) (declining to address substantive issues where plaintiff provided no
explanation as to why he waited more than a month to file a TRO motion); Ariel v. GMAC Mortg.,
LLC, C 12-04201 SBA, 2012 WL 5373388, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2012) (where plaintiffs
waited over three months after receiving a notice of default to file their complaint and TRO
motion, their “unexplained and lengthy delay in seeking injunctive relief implie[d] a lack of
urgency and irreparable harm and militate[d] against granting the relief requested”).
2