Fuleihan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 26

ORDER Denying 19 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice to Defendant of Plaintiffs 19 Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and 20 Ex Parte Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/14/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: all defense counsel 19 and 20 via electronic notification - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9

DENISE FULEIHAN,

10
11
12

2:13-CV-1145 JCM (NJK)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

13
14

Defendant(s).

15
16
17

ORDER
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Denise Fuleihan’s ex parte motion for a
temporary restraining order. (Doc. # 19).

18

In the short history of this mortgage-foreclosure related case, plaintiff has already sought

19

injunctive relief via ex parte motions for temporary restraining orders on two occasions. (See docs.

20

## 7 & 10). The court denied each motion.

21

Undeterred, plaintiff has filed a third ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. The

22

result is the same. Plaintiff has filed a variation of a form motion. There are scant specific facts in

23

plaintiff’s form motion. This is plaintiff’s third form motion filed in this case.

24

Plaintiff makes the same arguments that the court has already denied on two occasions.

25

Plaintiff asserts that the alleged securitization of her note and deed of trust voids her obligations to

26

the bank such that she can remain in her house for free. This motion is effectively a second motion

27

for reconsideration. Plaintiff is cautioned that she could be subject to sanctions for repeatedly filing

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

frivolous motions for a temporary restraining order and making the same arguments over and over

2

to the court via a form complaint.

3

In this court’s last order it held:

4

“The majority position is that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge noncompliance with a
[pooling service agreement] in securitization unless they are parties to the PSA or third party
beneficiaries of the PSA.” Baldoza v. Bank of America, N.A., no. C-12-05966-JCS, 2013
WL 978268, at *10 (N.D. Cal. March 12, 2013). This court follows the majority approach.
See Beebe v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n., no. 13-cv-311-JCM-GWF, 2013 WL 3109787, *2 (D.
Nev. June 18, 2013) (“Since the securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct
from plaintiffs’ debt obligations under the note and does not change the relationship of the
parties in any way, plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the securitization fail.”).

5
6
7
8
9
10

(Doc. # 10). This remains true and the court again declines to grant a temporary restraining order
based upon plaintiff’s securitization theory.

11

Additionally, this is plaintiff’s third motion filed ex parte. Local rule 7-5(b) requires that all

12

ex parte motions shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the

13

court without notice to all parties. Plaintiff has failed in each of her three motions seeking a

14

temporary restraining order to inform the court why the matter should be submitted to the court

15

without notice to all parties. The court now finds good cause to provide notice to the defendant so

16

that the defendant may view the motion. Additionally, plaintiff has filed the exact same motion as

17

a preliminary injunction, again ex parte. (See doc. # 20). The court likewise finds good cause to

18

provide notice to the defendant so that the defendant may view the motion and properly respond.

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s ex parte motion

21

for a temporary restraining order (doc. # 19) be, and the same hereby, is DENIED.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall provide notice to defendant of

23

plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (doc. # 19).

24

...

25

...

26

...

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall provide notice to defendant of
plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. # 20).
DATED August 14, 2013.

4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-