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).

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 http://cand.uscourts.gov.

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