Wang v. Country Wide Bank, N.A. and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al

Filing 8

ORDER Denying 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/02/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 JUN Y. WANG, 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A. et al., 10 11 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:12-cv-01161-RCJ-CWH ORDER 12 13 Plaintiff Jun Wang has sued Defendants in pro se in this Court based upon the foreclosure 14 of her mortgage. The Complaint lists seven causes of action: (1) fraud; (2) Real Estate 15 Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”); (3) “fraudulent foreclosure”; (4) Fair Debt Collection 16 Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (5) Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”); (6) “fraudulent assignment”; and 17 (7) “notary fraud.” Pending before the Court is a motion for a preliminary injunction. For the 18 reasons given herein, the Court denies the motion. 19 First, no Defendant has appeared because Plaintiff has not properly served any Defendant. 20 Plaintiff has filed into the record certificates of service that appear deficient on their faces in 21 several respects. Plaintiff has filed into the record copies of return receipts for pieces of mail 22 received by Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) and 23 Countrywide Bank, N.A. (“Countrywide”). Plaintiff apparently mailed a copy of the summons 24 but not the complaint (only the summons is attached to the certificate of service), to these entities 25 at the same address in Simi Valley, California. Plaintiff’s affidavits of service are undated and 1 are signed by her. The method of service is not indicated on the affidavits. Nor is there any 2 indication that Plaintiff complied with California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30, 3 governing service by mail, which requires copies of the summons and the complaint, as well as a 4 form for a defendant to acknowledge receipt. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.30. Nor is there any 5 evidence that the present motion was served upon any Defendant. 6 Second, even if Defendants had been served, Plaintiff does not provide enough evidence 7 for the Court to conclude that she is likely to succeed on the merits. There is no evidence 8 adduced of any foreclosure proceedings such as a notice of default or the like. 9 10 11 12 13 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 13th day of September,2012. 2nd day of October, 2012. 14 15 16 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 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?