Mclean v. Aurora Loan Servicing et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/3/11. (kaj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELA MCLEAN, 12 CASE NO. 11cv0455-LAB (NLS) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION vs. 13 14 AURORA LOAN SERVICING, etc., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Angela Mclean moves for a preliminary injunction to grant access to her 18 online mortgage account and to return her monthly mortgage payment to its pre-suit amount. 19 Mclean alleges that Defendant Aurora Loan Servicing raised her monthly mortgage payment 20 and locked her out of her online account in retaliation for filing of this suit, which contests the 21 assignment of her mortgage to Aurora and its alleged refusal to engage in a fair loan 22 modification process. (Compl. at ¶¶ 12–20.) Mclean has failed to demonstrate that she will 23 likely suffer irreparable harm absent the granting of her motion for a preliminary injunction. 24 I. DISCUSSION 25 A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy” that may only be 26 awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Munaf v. Green, 27 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (quoting 11A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 28 § 2948 (2d ed. 1995)). There are four elements a plaintiff must clearly demonstrate in order -1- 11cv0455 1 to obtain a preliminary injunction: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of 2 irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunction; (3) the balance of equities favors the 3 plaintiff; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources Def. 4 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). However, if a plaintiff cannot demonstrate the likelihood 5 of irreparable harm absent the preliminary relief, the Court does not need to address the 6 other three elements. See Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th Cir. 7 2011). 8 The harm the plaintiff seeks to prevent with the preliminary injunction must be both 9 likely and irreparable. “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, 10 not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. 11 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). “The key word in this consideration is 12 irreparable. Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy 13 necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough.” Sampson v. Murray, 415 14 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 15 The first harm that Mclean alleges will befall her without preliminary relief is her 16 continued inability to access her online mortgage account. Mclean claims to have been 17 “locked” out of her account since March 2011. However, Mclean has not alleged facts 18 showing that her inability to access her account online has or will injure her irreparably. 19 Mclean has been informed of her mortgage payments in advance of their due dates and has 20 paid them in full each time. (Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 6 (“Ms. Mclean continues to make her 21 payments on time, despite the fact that she has no access to her account . . . .”)) Out of 22 distrust for Aurora, she has declined to make payments by mail, and instead has used 23 Western Union. (Decl. of Mclean, ¶ 7.) While having access to a mortgage account online 24 would be more convenient than having to make payments by mail (or some alternative such 25 as the one Mclean is using), denial of this convenience does not constitute irreparable harm. 26 The second harm that Mclean alleges is the “financial harm of an unexplained 27 increase in her monthly mortgage payment,” a purely economic harm. However, economic 28 injury, by itself, does not constitute irreparable harm. See Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon TV -2- 11cv0455 1 & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991). Except in unusual 2 circumstances, see Wright & Miller, supra, when a plaintiff can be made whole through 3 pecuniary damages there is no irreparable harm. The increased mortgage payments do not 4 justify the extraordinary measure of a preliminary injunction. 5 Mclean alleges her property may be foreclosed on, and her credit rating damaged. 6 This harm, however, is too speculative to merit the granting of the preliminary injunction. 7 Mclean mistakenly relies on Simula v. Autoliv, 175 F.3d 716, 724 (9th Cir. 1999), for the 8 proposition that she must demonstrate a “significant threat of irreparable injury.” (Mot. for 9 Prelim. Inj. at 6.) But the standard is that irreparable harm must be likely. See Cottrell, 632 10 F.3d at 1131. Though Mclean has been able to pay the increased mortgage payments, she 11 says that because her husband’s pay was cut and because they are expecting a child, she 12 cannot afford her current mortgage obligations. (Dec. of Mclean at ¶ 16.) While the loss of 13 real property through foreclosure may constitute irreparable harm in some cases,1 Mclean 14 has not shown the likelihood of foreclosure. Nor has she shown it is likely Aurora will 15 damage her credit rating by reporting her non-payment of disputed amounts to credit 16 bureaus. 17 Mclean in passing also mentions Aurora’s failure to modify her loan, despite repeated 18 requests and extensive correspondence, as giving rise to irreparable harm. (Mot. for Prelim. 19 Inj. at 5:3–5.) But the complaint does not seek loan modification, and Mclean has no 20 statutory right to loan modification. Mabry v.Superior Ct., 185 Cal.App.4th 208, 231 (Cal. 21 App. 4 Dist. 2010). 22 None of the Court’s discussion of these issues is intended as a ruling or comment on 23 the merits. It may be that Mclean is being treated unfairly by Aurora. But the fact remains, 24 she has not shown that she will likely suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief. The 25 Court does not reach the other Winter factors See Ctr. for Food Safety, 636 F.3d at 1174. 26 27 28 1 Mclean cites Sundance Land Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed’l Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 840 F.2d 653 (9th Cir. 1988) for the proposition that loss of real property may constitute a threat of irreparable injury. But this does not address the problem here, that foreclosure is only speculative at this point. -3- 11cv0455 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 For these reasons, the Court holds that Mclean has not alleged and cannot show a 3 likelihood of irreparable harm. Mclean’s motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore 4 DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 3, 2011 7 8 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- 11cv0455

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?