Ng et al v. US Bank Trustee, NA et al

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 55 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARY JULIET NG,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

US BANK TRUSTEE, NA, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

14
15
16
17
18
19

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(Re: Docket No. 55)

10

13

Case No. 15-cv-04998-PSG

The court has before it Plaintiff Mary Juliet Ng’s application for a temporary restraining
order to prevent Defendants U.S. Bank N.A. and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. from proceeding
with a foreclosure of Ng’s home.1 Ng admits that she refinanced the home in 2007 but has made
no payments on the loan since 2010.2 Ng nevertheless claims that Defendants cannot initiate a
foreclosure because they have no interest in the deed of trust and because certain recorded
assignments of Ng’s deed of trust were invalid.3 Because a party seeking a temporary restraining
order must establish a likelihood of success on the merits,4 the court examines whether Ng has
made that showing.

20
21

1

See Docket No. 55.

22

2

See id. at 16.

3

See Docket No. 45 at ¶¶ 8-19.

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); DISH Network Corp. v. FCC,
653 F.3d 771, 776-77 (9th Cir. 2011). These cases involve preliminary injunctions, but the
standard for temporary restraining orders is the same. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John
D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc.
v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
1
Case No. 15-cv-04998-PSG
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Although Ng’s complaint alleges eleven causes of action,5 her application focuses on just

1
2

one: wrongful foreclosure.6 After reviewing the papers and considering the parties’ arguments at

3

today’s hearing,7 the court cannot say that Ng is likely to succeed on the merits of her wrongful

4

foreclosure claim. The reason is that, under California law, a plaintiff may not bring a preemptive

5

action for wrongful foreclosure before the sale takes place.8 This is precisely what Ng has done.
The application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

6
7

SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: April 22, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

5

22

6

23

See id. at ¶¶ 24-120.

In her application, Ng does reference her other claims. But she offers nothing to meet her burden
of establishing that she is likely to succeed on any of these claims.

24

7

25

8

26
27
28

See Docket No. 62.

See, e.g., Saterback v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790, 795-96 (Ct. App.
2016); Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1481, 1493 (2013); Lawrence v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 14-cv-01272, 2014 WL 2705425, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 13,
2014).
2
Case No. 15-cv-04998-PSG
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER