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)

Download PDF
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

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?