Sanchez et al v. WT Capital Lender Services et al

Filing 19

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 3/14/2012. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/15/2012: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (ofr, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
  1  2  3  4  5  6  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8  SAN JOSE DIVISION 9  United States District Court  For the Northern District of California  10  ALFONSO SANCHEZ, ANABERTHA SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs, 11  12  v. WT CAPITAL LENDER SERVICES, et al., 13  Defendants. 14  ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: C 11-5008 PSG ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Re: Docket No. 18) 15  On October 11, 2011, pro se Plaintiffs Alfonso Sanchez and Anabertha Sanchez 16  (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint that on its face appears to challenge the validity of foreclosure 17  proceedings on their property.1 Plaintiffs took no further action until the court issued an order to 18  show cause based on Plaintiffs’ non-appearance at the initial case management conference, after 19  which Plaintiffs served Defendants with the complaint and appeared on March 6, 2012 for a case 20  management conference. In response to Plaintiffs’ statement at the case management conference 21  22  that they might move for a temporary restraining order, the court advised Plaintiffs to seek the 23  assistance of the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center (FLASH) located at the San Jose 24  courthouse.2 Shortly after the case management conference, Defendants Chicago Title/Salinas 25  (“Chicago Title”) and Defendants Sterling Pacific Lending, Inc. and WT Capital Lender Services 26  27  28                                                          See generally Docket No. 1 (Compl.). 1 2 Docket No. 11. 1  Case No.: 11‐5008 PSG  ORDER     1  2  (collectively “SPL and WT Capital”) filed separate motions to dismiss, both currently set for hearing on May 15, 2012.3 3  On March 12, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an “ex parte application for an order”4 staying what 4  appears to be an unlawful detainer judgment against Plaintiffs, issued by the Monterey County 5  Superior Court on February 15, 2012. In order to facilitate the resolution of this case and any 6  pending motions by way of the appropriate procedural mechanisms, the court hereby issues the 7  8  following order and guidance: 1. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is to be construed as a motion for a 9  United States District Court  For the Northern District of California  10  temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs must comply with Civ. L.R. 65-1.5 This includes 11  filing of required documentation with the motion and providing notice to the other 12  parties. 13  2. The resolution of a motion for a temporary restraining order filed before a magistrate 14  judge requires the consent of all parties in the case.6 Unless all parties consent, the 15  undersigned will be unable to proceed with a determination on a motion for a temporary 16  restraining order. 17  3. In light of Plaintiffs’ pro se status and the need for all parties to consent before this 18  19  court can consider a motion for a temporary restraining order, the court will allow 20  Plaintiffs five (5) days to re-file their motion in a manner consistent with Civ. L.R. 65- 21  22                                                          Docket Nos. 16, 17. 23  3 24  4 25  Docket No. 18. Plaintiff’s ex parte application was not processed and entered by the court until March 14, 2012, the same date that chambers received a copy and became aware of the application. 5 26  The Civil Local Rules of the Northern District of California may be found on the court’s website at 27  6 28  Absent consent of all parties, a magistrate judge does not have authority to make case-dispositive rulings. See, e.g., Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-59 (9th Cir. 1988). 2  Case No.: 11‐5008 PSG  ORDER     1  2  1. Plaintiffs are strongly encouraged to utilize the resources offered by FLASH, as previously suggested to them. 3  Therefore, Plaintiffs may re-file a motion for temporary restraining order no later than 4  Monday, March 19, 2012. If by that same date, all parties have consented to magistrate jurisdiction, 5  the court will take Plaintiffs’ motion under submission at that time. Otherwise, the case will be 6  reassigned to a district judge. 7  8  9  IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3/14/2012 United States District Court  For the Northern District of California  10  _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  3  Case No.: 11‐5008 PSG  ORDER  

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?