Ludlow v. Silver State Financial Services, Inc. et al

Filing 5

ORDER Denying 4 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/13/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

KURT B. LUDLOW,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:15-CV-235 JCM (NJK)
ORDER

v.
SILVER STATE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Kurt B. Ludlow’s motion for a temporary

14
15

restraining order. (Doc. # 4).
A court may issue a temporary restraining order when the moving party provides specific

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

facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the adverse
party’s opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction can be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. “The
purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary
injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to prevent
irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment.” Estes v. Gaston, no. 2:12-cv-1853-JCM-VCF, 2012
WL 5839490, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2012) (citing Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc.,
739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984)). “Thus, in seeking a temporary restraining order, the movant
must demonstrate that the denial of relief will expose him to some significant risk of irreparable
injury.” Id. (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Coalition of Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d
1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991)).
...
...

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

satisfy each element.

7

As an initial matter, the court recognizes that the plaintiff has filed the instant motion for

8

temporary restraining order pro se. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order

9

must be construed liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed

10

pro se is to be liberally construed . . . .”). However, “pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case

11

should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler,

12

790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986).

13

Plaintiff alleges three causes of action in his complaint: breach of contract, slander of title,

14

and fraud. Plaintiff seeks to prevent his eviction from a property he alleges has been improperly

15

foreclosed upon and sold. Plaintiff does not include the date that the foreclosure occurred or any

16

dates for his allegedly impending eviction.

17

In reviewing plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, the court notes that plaintiff

18

has included no argument or citation as to why plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the

19

causes of actions in his complaint. Plaintiff’s motion merely states that “[d]efendants have

20

foreclosed and sold the [p]laintiff’s [p]roperty and now intend to evict him from that property” and

21

that eviction will cause plaintiff to “suffer irreparable damage.” (Doc. # 4.)

22

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order also alleges that defendants have “failed

23

to abiode [sic] by the federal mandates of RESPA [Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act] in its

24

entirety,” and that defendants have violated plaintiff’s due process rights by subjecting him to

25

eviction. (Doc. # 4). Defendant’s complaint does not allege RESPA or due process claims.

26

...

27

...

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Though this court sympathizes with plaintiff’s plight, he has failed to meet the standard for

2

the extraordinary remedy a temporary restraining order represents. This court does not find it is

3

likely for plaintiff to succeed on the merits of any of the claims he purports to assert.

4

Further, plaintiff indicates that he has “filed a separate action in the federal court alleging

5

that the foreclosure was wrongful, that [d]efendants, all named, have violated federal laws in

6

gaining the non-judicial foreclosure and sale of the subject [p]roperty, and have violated [his] due

7

process rights.” (Doc. # 4). Plaintiff does not provide a citation to the separate action in federal

8

court and this court is left wondering why plaintiff opened a new case and filed the instant motion

9

for temporary restraining order if a case is already pending.

10

IV.

Conclusion

11

Accordingly,

12

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

13
14
15
16

temporary restraining order (doc. # 4) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
DATED February 13, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-3-