Zizi v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston, 2005-10, by its Attorney in Fact Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger to Well Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/22/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

TSADOK ZIZI,

9
10
11
12
13
14

2:11-CV-1511 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR
CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON, et
al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

ORDER
Presently before the court is plaintiff, appearing in proper persona, Tsadok Zizi’s motion for
a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 2). Defendants have not responded.

19

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a court may issue a temporary restraining

20

order when the moving party provides specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury,

21

loss, or damage will result before the adverse party’s opposition to a motion for preliminary

22

injunction can be heard. The Supreme Court has stated that courts must consider the following

23

factors in determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction:

24

(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable injury if preliminary relief is

25

not granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) advancement of the public interest. Winter v.

26

N.R.D.C., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374–76 (2008).

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

In his motion, plaintiff alleges that any foreclosure on his property is unlawful because the

2

promissory note has been divorced from the deed of trust. Plaintiff asserts that when these

3

documents are separated, any security is forfeited, and a foreclosure sale may not proceed. This

4

argument has been rejected by the Ninth Circuit. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,

5

– F.3d –, 2011 WL 3911031, *6-7 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011). Plaintiff’s motion provides no argument

6

on the other causes of action pled in his complaint. Therefore, this court is unable conclude that

7

plaintiff enjoys a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim.

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for a

10
11

temporary restraining order (doc. #2) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED September 22, 2011.

12
13
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-