Warren v. Wells Fargo & Company et al
Filing
73
ORDER Denying Motion to Stay Foreclosure [Doc. No. 63 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 12/08/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK WARREN,
Case No.: 3:16-cv-2872-CAB-(NLS)
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY FORECLOSURE
13
WELLS FARGO & CO., WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.
[Doc. No. 63]
14
15
Defendants.
16
17
On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary
18
Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction to restrain Defendants from
19
foreclosing on and selling the real property located at 5934 Portobelo Court in San Diego,
20
California. [Doc. No. 10.] A hearing on Plaintiff’s TRO Application was held on February
21
16, 2017 [Doc. No. 18.] Following the TRO hearing, the Court issued an Order to Show
22
Cause on the Preliminary Injunction. [Doc. No. 30.] Defendants filed their response in
23
opposition to Plaintiff’s request [Doc. No. 34] and Plaintiff filed his reply [Doc. No. 36].
24
A hearing on the request was held on June 8, 2017. [Doc. No. 38.] On October 3, 2017,
25
Plaintiff, aware that the Court would be issuing an order on the Preliminary Injunction in
26
the near future, filed “Supplemental Facts in Support of the Court Granting an Injunction.”
27
[Doc. No. 58.] Finally, on October 11, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte
28
application for a preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 59.] A month later, on November 9,
1
3:16-cv-2872-CAB-(NLS)
1
2017, Plaintiff appealed the Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.
2
[Doc. No. 62.] Plaintiff now moves for a stay of foreclosure until his appeal is resolved.
3
“‘[T]he factors regulating the issuance of a stay’ [are]: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant
4
has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the
5
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
6
substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public
7
interest lies.’” Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112,
8
1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). These
9
factors are almost identical to the factors applicable to the determination of whether to issue
10
a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
11
(2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
12
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
13
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
14
the public interest.”).
15
reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, and
16
simply restates the same arguments that did not persuade the Court the first time around.
17
Indeed, Plaintiff dedicates most of his motion to attempts at distinguishing cases cited in
18
the Court’s order and incorporates by reference the same arguments Plaintiff made in
19
support of a preliminary injunction.
Thus, the instant motion is little more than a motion for
20
As with his application for a preliminary injunction, the instant motion fails to
21
demonstrate that Plaintiff is entitled to delay foreclosure of the Property any longer. The
22
Court effectively already addressed the factors applicable to a stay pending appeal in detail
23
in its order denying Plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction. In that order, the
24
Court found that: (1) Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits and prevent the sale of
25
the Property; (2) Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury if foreclosure is not enjoined;
26
(3) Defendant would not suffer serious hardship as a result of an injunction; and (4) the
27
public interest is neutral with respect to an injunction. The Court’s reasoning for reaching
28
these conclusions is equally applicable to Plaintiff’s motion for a stay, and the Court is not
2
3:16-cv-2872-CAB-(NLS)
1
persuaded by any of Plaintiff’s arguments to reconsider these findings. If anything, further
2
delay of foreclosure is even less warranted now because Plaintiff obtained at least some of
3
the relief he sought insofar as Defendant completed its review of his application for a loan
4
modification. Accordingly, because the applicable factors do not support issuance of a stay
5
pending appeal, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
6
7
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 8, 2017
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:16-cv-2872-CAB-(NLS)
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?