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

Filing 10

ORDERED that the Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (## 8 , 9 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/9/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1
2
3
4

STEVEN J. BRADY et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7
8

vs.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. et al.,
Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:14-cv-00440-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs sued Defendants in this Court in pro se for invasion of privacy, negligent hiring
and supervision, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed

14

the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, giving Plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended
15
16

complaint. When Plaintiffs failed to comply, the Court warned them that it would dismiss if no

17

amended complaint were filed by May 29, 2015, which was 278 days after the Court issued the

18

screening order. Plaintiffs did not comply, but the Court granted a motion extending time to

19

June 15, 2015. On June 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the present motions for a temporary restraining
20
21
22
23
24

order and a preliminary injunction, indicating that a foreclosure sale on their real property was
scheduled for June 23, 2015.
The Court denies the motions. A temporary restraining order is unavailable. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65 (b)(1). Although the present motions are labeled as “verified,” they are not in fact

25

verified, because they are not sworn, and there is no attached affidavit. The Complaint originally
26
27

filed was verified, but it has been dismissed and is no longer operative. A preliminary injunction

28

is unavailable because there is no evidence the adverse parties have been notified. See Fed. R.
1

1

Civ. P. 65(a)(1). There is no operative complaint, and there is no evidence the present motions

2

have been served. The “certificates of service” attached to the present motions indicate only that

3

the motions “will be” served, not that they have been served. Those documents are therefore not

4

certificates of service. Finally, the motions indicate an impending foreclosure sale of Plaintiffs’

5

real property, but the original Complaint had nothing to do with any foreclosure. It concerned
6
7

only credit reporting and debt collection violations, invasion of privacy, and negligent hiring and

8

supervision related thereto. The Court gave leave to amend to correct the deficiencies in those

9

claims. The Court has never given leave to amend to add foreclosure-related claims, and

10

Plaintiffs have not requested it. In any case, Plaintiffs have not made any showing that they have

11

a reasonable chance of success on the merits. They have not shown or even alleged any common
12
13

law or statutory infirmity with the impending foreclosure sale but have simply asked the Court to

14

enjoin it.

15

CONCLUSION

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and
17
18
19
20
21
22

Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 8, 9) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 9th day of June 2015.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2