Griffin v. Countrywide Home Loan Servicing LP et al

Filing 49

ORDER Denying 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. FURTHER ORDERED that 19 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

NINA S. GRIFFIN,
4
5
6
7
8
9

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN SERVICING, )
LP, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

10

Case No.: 2:11-cv-00953-GMN-PAL
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16) filed by

11

Plaintiff Nina Griffin. Also before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) filed by

12

Defendants Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP,

13

formerly known as Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP (“BANA”); Merscorp, Inc.;

14

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Merscorp, Inc. (“MERS”);

15

Recontrust Company, N.A., and Recontrust Company (“ReconTrust”) (collectively “Defendants”).

16

I.

17

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed her Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) in state court involving

18

Defendants’ foreclosure actions relating to the property at 5222 Rock Cabin Court, North Las

19

Vegas, NV 89031. Plaintiff also filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16) in

20

state court. After the case was removed to this Court, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint

21

(ECF No. 24) on September 7, 2011 and did not re-file her motion for preliminary injunction to

22

address the Amended Complaint. Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF

23

No. 28) the Amended Complaint.

24
25

In her motion seeking preliminary injunction, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an
injunction allowing Plaintiff to stay in her property and prohibiting Defendants or any other

Page 1 of 3

1

party “from foreclosing, and/or pursuing any foreclosure action, taking possession of, selling

2

the home to third parties, ejecting the Plaintiff or in any other manner interfering with the

3

peaceful enjoyment and possession, and that no bonds be required of the Plaintiff because no

4

damages are ascertainable to the Defendants.” (Mot. for Prelim. Inj., 3:14-23, ECF No. 16.)

5

As a basis for this motion, Plaintiff alleges a variation of the argument that securitization

6

of the loan note absolves her of her obligations under the loan.

7

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed

8
9

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

10

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

11

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Furthermore, “‘serious

12

questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff

13

can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is

14

a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for

15

the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). And finally, “[i]n deciding a

16

motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court ‘is not bound to decide doubtful and

17

difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact.’” Int’l. Molders’ & Allied Workers’

18

Local Union No. 164, 799 F.2d 547, 551 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Dymo Indus., Inc. v.

19

Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964)).

20

III.

21

DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction fails in that she cannot show that she

22

is likely to succeed on the merits, nor has she shown that there are serious questions going to

23

the merits. Although Plaintiff does show that she may suffer serious hardships and even

24

irreparable harm if Defendants are not enjoined from pursuing foreclosure actions, she does not

25

show that Defendants would not suffer hardships as well. The Court finds that the balance of

Page 2 of 3

1

equities does not tip sharply towards the Plaintiff because Defendants would also suffer harm if

2

enjoined from exercising any rights they may have relating to the property. Likewise, the Court

3

does not find that an injunction in this case is in the public interest.

4

Also, the Court finds that since Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint (ECF no. 24)

5

after Defendants filed their first Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19), the Motion to Dismiss is

6

moot, and will be denied accordingly.

7

IV.

8
9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16)
is DENIED.

10
11
12

CONCLUSION

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is DENIED as
moot.
DATED this 30th day of March, 2012.

13
14

____________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3