Frederick v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al
Filing
43
ORDER Denying 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of an Emergency Restraining Order and 38 Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 40 Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time is DENIED. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
Robert Frederick,
4
5
6
7
8
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No.: 2:11-cv-00522-GMN-CWH
ORDER
9
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Robert Frederick’s “Motion for Issuance of an
10
11
Emergency Temporary Restraining Order to Stay the Repossion [sic] of Real Property; and
12
Imposition of Permanent Injunctive Relief Barring the Repossion [sic] of the Real Property by
13
Defendants.” (ECF Nos. 37, 38.) Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie
14
Mae”) and Aurora Loan Services, LLC, (“Aurora”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) have
15
filed an Opposition (ECF No. 39). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for
16
Enlargement of Time” (ECF No. 40) requesting an extension of time to reply to Moving
17
Defendants’ Opposition.
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
On April 18, 2012, the Court granted Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and gave
20
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by May 14, 2012. (Order, ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff
21
later filed a motion requesting enlargement of time to file first amended complaint (ECF No.
22
21), and the Court granted the motion, giving Plaintiff leave to file his amended complaint by
23
August 3, 2012. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) on August
24
3, 2012, to which Defendants MERSCORP, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration
25
Systems, Inc. filed an Answer (ECF No. 25) on August 20, 2012. On September 26, 2012,
Page 1 of 4
1
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default (ECF No. 26) as to Moving Defendants and
2
Defendants Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., and Centex Mortgage Services, which was
3
subsequently entered by the Clerk (ECF No. 28). After Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default
4
Judgment (ECF No. 29), Moving Defendant then filed a Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Entry of
5
Default (ECF No. 31), to which Plaintiff’s opposition is due December 3, 2012 (ECF No. 36).
6
II.
7
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs preliminary injunctions and temporary
8
restraining orders, and requires that a motion for temporary restraining order include “specific
9
facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable
10
injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
11
opposition,” as well as written certification from the movant’s attorney stating “any efforts
12
made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
13
Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to
14
preliminary injunctions. See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181
15
F.Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Furthermore, a temporary restraining order “should
16
be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing
17
irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose
18
Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974).
19
A preliminary injunction may be issued if a plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of
20
success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3)
21
that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
22
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “Injunctive relief [is] an
23
extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
24
entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. The Ninth Circuit has held that “‘serious questions going to
25
the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of
Page 2 of 4
1
an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” Alliance for the
2
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).
3
III.
4
DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff’s request for temporary restraining order, filed on October 29, 2012, fails
5
to include “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that
6
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse
7
party can be heard in opposition.” Plaintiff submits copies of documents purportedly from
8
North Las Vegas Justice Court and states that an eviction order is included, but the only
9
documents attached appear to be a Notice to Appear and an Order to Show Cause scheduling a
10
hearing on October 15, 2012. In subsequent filings, Plaintiff represents that he and his family
11
were evicted on November 7, 2012. (See Mot. for Enlargement of Time, ECF Nos. 40, 41.)
12
These facts require the Court to deny Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order, both
13
for failure to satisfy his burden to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of
14
preliminary relief, and for apparent mootness.
15
Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden to establish a likelihood of success
16
on the merits, or serious questions going to the merits. Therefore, the Court cannot grant
17
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief
18
also appears to be rendered moot based on his representations to the Court as to his family’s
19
eviction.
20
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Enlargement of Time” (ECF No. 40) requesting additional time
21
to reply to Defendants’ Opposition is unnecessary and moot, since the Court must deny
22
Plaintiff’s requests for injunction even before considering or relying upon Defendants’
23
Opposition. Accordingly, this motion for enlargement of time will be denied, as well.
24
25
Plaintiff is permitted to re-file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction if he can show that
such a request is not rendered moot by his eviction, and if he is able to satisfy the requirements
Page 3 of 4
1
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
2
7, 20 (2008) ((1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the
3
absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an
4
injunction is in the public interest) or Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,
5
1132 (9th Cir. 2011) (“‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips
6
sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two
7
elements of the Winter test are also met”).
8
IV.
9
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Issuance of an Emergency
10
Temporary Restraining Order to Stay the Repossion [sic] of Real Property; and Imposition of
11
Permanent Injunctive Relief Barring the Repossion [sic] of the Real Property by Defendants”
12
(ECF Nos. 37, 38) is DENIED.
13
14
15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Enlargement of Time” (ECF
No. 40) is DENIED.
DATED this 16th day of November, 2012.
16
17
18
19
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4 of 4
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?