Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 13

ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTION AND OPPOSITION TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on April 3, 2013. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
SAN JOSE DIVISION

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

NANCY CALDWELL, an individual,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor in
)
interest to Wachova Mortgage, FSB Successor in )
Interest to World Savings Bank; REGIONAL
)
TRUSTEE SERVICES CORPORATION, a
)
Washington corporation; all persons or entities )
unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, )
title, lien or interest in the property described in )
this complaint adverse to Plaintiff's title thereto; )
DOES 1 THROUGH 25, inclusive
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 13-CV-01344-LHK

ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTION
AND OPPOSITION TO TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

On March 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed her complaint in this matter as well as an application for
a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the March 28, 2013 foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s
home by Defendants. See ECF Nos. 1 and 3. Plaintiff withdrew the motion on March 28, 2013.
ECF No. 12. Plaintiff’s home is located at 203 Calle Manzanita in Santa Barbara, California
(“Plaintiff’s Property”), which is in the Central District of California. See ECF No. 3 at 1.

28
1
Case No.: 13-CV-01344-LHK
ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTION AND OPPOSITION TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

1

Moreover, Plaintiff appears to be litigating a separate case against Defendants in the Central

2

District of California regarding the same property, and Plaintiff has unsuccessfully applied for a

3

temporary restraining order in that case. See Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 2:12-cv-09373-

4

JAK-FFM, ECF No. 151. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to file briefs addressing

5

whether this Court has jurisdiction over this matter and whether the Northern District of California

6

is the proper venue for this matter. The parties’ briefs shall not exceed two pages. The parties

7

shall file their briefs by April 10, 2013.
In the event that Plaintiff submits another application for a temporary restraining order

8
9

immediately before the next trustee sale date, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file their

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

opposition to Plaintiff’s previously filed application for a temporary restraining order by April 17,

11

2013. If Plaintiff files another application for a temporary restraining order, and Defendants wish

12

to submit further briefing in opposition at that time, Defendant shall file such briefing the same

13

business day as the filing of the application for a temporary restraining order.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a statement by April 10, 2013, identifying the

14
15

following: (1) all closed and pending cases Plaintiff has filed to challenge the foreclosure on

16

Plaintiff's Property; (2) all dates on which a Trustee Sale has been scheduled on Plaintiff's Property

17

and when Plaintiff became aware of each date; and (3) all applications for a temporary restraining

18

order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction Plaintiff has filed to enjoin foreclosure on

19

Plaintiff's Property and the disposition of each application.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: April 3, 2013

22

________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

In the Central District case, Judge Kronstadt initially granted the Plaintiff’s request for a
temprorary restraining order because, as occurred in this case, Plaintiff filed the TRO shortly
before the foreclosure sale, thereby depriving the Court of adequate time to review the request. See
Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 2:12-cv-09373-JAK-FFM, ECF No. 15 at 1-2. In dissolving
the TRO, Judge Kronstadt noted that Plaintiff was at fault for creating the emergency which
necessitated the TRO because, despite having been aware that Defendants planned to foreclose
upon Plaintiff’s Property for eleven months, Plaintiff failed to move for injunctive relief earlier. Id.
at 2. Judge Kronstadt found that Plaintiff’s decision to file the TRO when she did was a “strategic
choice.” Id. at 3.
2
Case No.: 13-CV-01344-LHK
ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTION AND OPPOSITION TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER