Yuzon et al v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B. et al

Filing 6

ORDER that plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order 2 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/31/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
Yuzon et al v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B. et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge PEDRO C. YUZON and SALVACION YUZON, individually, BRYAN MUSICAR, individually, and MAIN STREET RESPONSE, L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company, Plaintiffs, v. INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., et al., Defendants. 2:10-CV-1473 JCM (LRL) ORDER Presently before the court is plaintiff Pedro and Salvacion Yuzon, Main Street Response, LLC, and Bryan Musicar's motion for temporary restraining order to prevent defendants Indymac Bank and Regional Trustee Services Corporation from completing a non-judicial trustee sale scheduled for Tuesday, August 31, 2010, at 10 AM regarding real property located at 10920 Cardinal Crest Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144. (Doc. #2). According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a court may issue a temporary restraining order when the moving party provides specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the adverse party's opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction can be heard. The Supreme Court has stated that courts must consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) possibility of irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) advancement of the public interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C., 129 S. Ct. 365, 37476 (2008). Here, plaintiffs claim that the defendant-lender has failed to provide "a proper valuation of the property and to identify to plaintiffs the exact amounts due under the Mortgage." (Doc. #1, compl. at 23). However, plaintiffs have not presented evidence that they have or are continuing to make payments under the terms of the mortgage agreement. Thus, the court finds that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor have they demonstrated irreparable injury as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order (doc. #2) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice. DATED August 31, 2010. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

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?