Hakimi v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation as Trustee for Securitized Trust Alternative Loan Trust 2004-33 et al

Filing 18

ORDER that 13 Motion for TRO is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/28/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

IMAN HAKIMI,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:14-CV-2215 JCM (CWH)
ORDER

v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is plaintiff Iman Hakimi’s motion for a temporary restraining

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

order. (Doc. # 13).1
I.

Background
This case arises from a mortgage loan that plaintiff obtained to finance his purchase of

the property located at 537 Hagens Alley, Mesquite, Nevada 89027. To evidence the loan,
plaintiff executed a promissory note for $155,500.00 on September 24, 2004. (Doc. # 1-1).
Countrywide Bank, N.A. secured the note with a first deed of trust. (Doc. # 1-1). The deed of
trust named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as beneficiary and CTC
Real Estate Services as trustee. The deed of trust was recorded with the Clark County Recorder
on October 1, 2004. (Doc. # 1-1).
On December 20, 2012, MERS assigned the deed of trust to Bank of America, N.A.
Bank of America recorded a substitution of trustee on September 20, 2013, naming National

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss which is currently not ripe for this court’s
consideration. (Doc. # 5).

1

Default Servicing Corporation (“National Default”) as trustee under the deed of trust. Plaintiff

2

defaulted on the loan.

3

On September 30, 2013, National Default, as substitute trustee, recorded a notice of

4

default and election to sell against the property. (Doc. # 1, ¶ 40). Bank of America then

5

recorded an assignment transferring the deed of trust to MCM Capital Partners, LLC, (“MCM”)

6

on February 8, 2014. (Doc. # 1, ¶ 47).

7

National Default recorded a notice of trustee’s sale against the property on April 11,

8

2014. (Doc. # 1, ¶ 51). National Default recorded a second notice of trustee’s sale against the

9

property on September 30, 2014. On October 21, 2014, MCM, as trustee, purchased the property

10

at foreclosure.
Plaintiff filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada on

11
12

October 14, 2014.

At the time plaintiff initiated his complaint he was represented by an

13

attorney.2 Defendants Bank of America and CTC Real Estate Services removed the case to this

14

court on December 30, 2014. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims for (1) lack of

15

standing/wrongful foreclosure; (2) fraud in the concealment; (3) fraud in the inducement; (4)

16

slander of title; (5) quiet title; (6) declaratory relief; (7) a violation of the Truth in Lending Act

17

(“TILA”); (8) a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”); (9)

18

contractual rescission; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (11) fraud. (Doc. #

19

1). Plaintiff seeks compensatory, special, general, and punitive damages, as well as an order

20

granting him ownership of the property in fee simple. (Doc. # 1).
Plaintiff now seeks the instant temporary restraining order. (Doc. # 13). Plaintiff is

21
22

currently proceeding pro se.

23

II.

Legal Standard

24

A court may issue a temporary restraining order when the moving party provides specific

25

facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the

26

adverse party’s opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction can be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P.

27
28

2

The court granted plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to withdraw on January 26, 2015. (Doc.

# 12).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

65. “The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before a

2

preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to

3

prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment.” Estes v. Gaston, no. 2:12-cv-1853-JCM-

4

VCF, 2012 WL 5839490, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2012) (citing Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix

5

Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984)). “Thus, in seeking a temporary restraining

6

order, the movant must demonstrate that the denial of relief will expose him to some significant

7

risk of irreparable injury.” Id. (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Coalition of

8

Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991)).

9

The Supreme Court has stated that courts must consider the following elements in

10

determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction: (1) a

11

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not

12

granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) advancement of the public interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C.,

13

555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The test is conjunctive, meaning the party seeking the injunction must

14

satisfy each element.

15

III.

Discussion

16

As an initial matter, the court recognizes that the plaintiff, though initially represented by

17

an attorney, has filed the instant motion for temporary restraining order pro se. Therefore,

18

plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order must be construed liberally. See Erickson v.

19

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed . . . .”).

20

However, “pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than

21

parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986).

22

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order provides almost no facts. It appears

23

that plaintiff wishes to prevent his property from being sold at a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff

24

merely states that, based on his complaint, this is “a proper instance for the issuance of a

25

Temporary Restraining Order” and that he will suffer “immediate and irreparable injury,” unless

26

the court enjoins defendants from selling his property on October 21, 2014. (Doc. # 13).

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

-3-

1

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for temporary restraining order on January 26, 2015.

2

The sale plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order seeks to halt occurred more than three

3

months ago on October 21, 2014. As the sale has already passed and the property has been sold,

4

plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order is moot.

5

Further, even were the court to look at the merits of plaintiff’s motion for temporary

6

restraining order, plaintiff does not address a single one of the Winter factors in his motion, and

7

would fail to satisfy the elements necessary for this court to grant a temporary restraining order.

8

IV.

9
10
11
12

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

temporary restraining order (doc. # 13) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.
DATED January 28, 2015.

13
14

__________________________________________

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-4-