Chavez-Gallegos et al v. First Magnus Financial Corporation et al

Filing 23

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction(Doc. #1, Exhibit B) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 12/20/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

JESUS CHAVEZ-GALLEGOS

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; et al.,

13
Defendants.
14
15

3:11-cv-0709-LRH-VPC
ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Jesus Chavez-Gallegos’s (“Gallegos”) motion for a preliminary

16

injunction. Doc. #1, Exhibit B.1

17

I.

18

Facts and Procedural History
In March, 2006, Gallegos purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of trust

19

originated by defendant First Magnus Financial Corporation (“Magnus”). Eventually, Gallegos

20

defaulted on the mortgage note and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.

21

Subsequently, Gallegos filed a complaint against defendants alleging seven causes of

22

action: (1) defective foreclosure; (2) negligence; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) slander of

23

title; (5) breach of contract; (6) declaratory relief; and (7) injunctive relief. Doc. #1, Exhibit A.

24

Along with his complaint, Gallegos filed the present motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. #1,

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

Exhibit B.

2

II.

Discussion

3

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear

4

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968,

5

972 (1997) (per curiam)). A court may only grant a preliminary injunction upon a showing that:

6

(1) the petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his complaint; (2) irreparable harm will result

7

in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance of equities favors an injunction; and (4) an

8

injunction is in the public’s interest. Winters v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376

9

(2008) (citations omitted); Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir.

10

2010).

11

Here, Gallegos contends that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction stopping the pending

12

foreclosure because defendants do not have authority under Nevada law to conduct the underlying

13

foreclosure. See Doc. #1, Exhibit B.

14

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that

15

Gallegos’s motion for a preliminary injunction is without merit. Gallegos has failed to establish that

16

he is likely to succeed on the merits of his complaint. In the complaint, Gallegos only makes

17

conclusory allegations concerning defendants’ activities without explaining why the named

18

defendants (the lender, beneficiaries and trustee under the deed of trust) do not have authority under

19

Nevada law to initiate non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. In Nevada, trustees, beneficiaries

20

under the deed of trust, and associated agents and successors have authority to initiate non-judicial

21

foreclosure proceedings. See NRS 107.080. Therefore, the court finds that Gallegos is not likely to

22

succeed on the merits of his complaint and shall deny his motion for a preliminary injunction

23

accordingly.

24

///

25

///

26

2

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction
(Doc. #1, Exhibit B) is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED this 20th day of December, 2011.

5
6
7

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3