GRAY v. LAW OFFICES OF PEGGY L BROWN PC et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 63 Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 06/20/2019 (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
SANDRA GRAY, individually and
*
as the executrix for the estate
of Nathan Gray,
*
Plaintiff,

*

vs.
PEGGY BROWN, et al.,

*

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-153 (CDL)

*

*
O R D E R

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion
for

preliminary

injunction

(ECF

No.

63).

As

the

Court

previously recounted, Plaintiff alleges that her signature was
forged on closing documents when her late husband obtained a
refinance loan secured by property that she owned as the sole
owner.
documents

Plaintiff
and

relationship

insists

that

between

there
her

that
was

and

she
no

the

did

not

legitimate
lender.

sign

the

loan

borrower-lender

Plaintiff

asserts

fraud and negligence claims against the loan originator, the
closing attorney, and a notary who was involved in the closing,
and she seeks a declaration that the security deed should be set
aside due to fraud.
York

Mellon

Plaintiff further contends that Bank of New

(“Mellon”)

accepted

assignment

of

the

promissory

note and security deed and that and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
(“Ocwen”) undertook servicing the loan even though they both had

enough information to know that her signature on the security
deed was forged and that there was thus no legitimate borrowerlender

relationship.

Ocwen

Services

(“PHH”).

By

informed

Plaintiff

that

recently

letter
the

dated

servicing

acquired
April
of

transferred to PHH, effective May 1, 2019.

PHH

12,

her

Mortgage

2019,

loan

Ocwen

would

be

Plaintiff filed her

present motion on May 6, 2019, seeking a preliminary injunction
restraining Ocwen from transferring the servicing of Plaintiff’s
loan.
To

obtain

a

preliminary

injunction,

Plaintiff

must

establish “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits
of

her

case;

(2)

that

she

would

suffer

irreparable

injury

without the issuance of the injunction; (3) that her potential
injury is greater than the possible harm the injunction would
cause [Defendants]; and (4) that the injunction would disserve
the public interest.” Berber v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 760 F.
App’x 684, 686 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).

“A court need not

examine all of four prongs, because if, as here, no showing of
irreparable injury is made, the injunction cannot be issued.”
Id.

Here, Plaintiff has not established that she will suffer

irreparable harm based on Ocwen’s transfer of her loan servicing
to its subsidiary.

The only harm she points to is that a new

entity is now a potential Defendant even though the pleadings
and discovery are closed.

That is not an irreparable harm.

2

Since Plaintiff did not establish that irreparable harm would
result

without

a

preliminary

injunction,

her

motion

for

preliminary injunction is denied.
The parties are advised that this case will be tried during
the

Court’s

November

2019

trial

term,

and

the

pretrial

conference will be held in October 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of June, 2019.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3