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)
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?