Rego v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 4

ORDER Dismissing Complaint Without Prejudice, Quashing Summons, and Denying Request for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 12/5/12. (kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH REGO,

12

CASE NO. 12cv2894-LAB (WVG)
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT; AND

vs.
ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS;
AND

14
15

ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

16

Defendant.

17
18

On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff Joseph Rego, an attorney registered within this

19

District’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system, electronically filed his complaint

20

in this action. The Clerk in response issued a summons electronically (Docket no. 3).

21

Rego did not, however, pay the filing fee required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 nor did he

22

file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED

23

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Heizelman v. Doe, 2012 WL 5392189, slip op. at *3 (S.D.Cal.,

24

Nov. 5, 2012) (reaffirming dismissal of civil action for failure to pay the required $350 filing

25

fee). Because no fee was paid, the Clerk should not have issued the summons. The

26

summons electronically issued is therefore QUASHED.

27

///

28

///
-1-

12cv2894

1

In the complaint’s prayer for relief, Rego included a request for a temporary

2

restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. As a result, the Clerk docketed the

3

complaint alternatively as a motion for a TRO. (Docket no. 2.)

4

The request was improper for several reasons. First, although Rego is asking for a

5

ruling, his request was not filed or briefed as a motion, but instead was tucked into the

6

complaint; furthermore, it does not comply with this Court's rules regarding motions. See Civil

7

Local Rule 7.1(f(1). The request for a TRO also does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)'s

8

requirements, or this chambers' standing order regarding notice to opposing parties. See

9

Standing Order, ¶ 5. Finally, the request for a TRO and preliminary injunction does not

10

adequately address the standards for issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction. See

11

Stanchart Securities Int'l, Inc. v. Galvadon, 2012 WL 5286952 at *1 (S.D.Cal., Oct. 24, 2012)

12

(discussing standards for issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction).

13

The request for a TRO or preliminary injunction (Docket no. 2) is therefore DENIED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: December 5, 2012

17
18

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

12cv2894