Mesi et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 31 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/18/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1
2
3
4

ERIC MESI AND BETTY MESI,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7

vs.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK et al.,

8

Defendants.

9

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

3:15-cv-00555-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

10
11
12
13

This case arises out of a disputed property foreclosure. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
have violated numerous state and federal laws by engaging in fraudulent and unfair practices.
On November 23, 2015, Plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the trustee

14

sale of Plaintiffs’ property scheduled for December 11, 2015. The Court denied the motion on
15
16

December 11, 2015 because Plaintiffs did not have a reasonable probability of success on the

17

merits of their claims, and they made no arguments that denying their motion would result in

18

irreparable injury (ECF No. 27).

19

Plaintiffs have asked the Court to reconsider their request for a temporary restraining
20
21

order based on newly discovered evidence (ECF No. 31). They have provided a notice from

22

Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) dated February 14, 2014 informing Fred Mesi

23

that it would transfer the servicing of his mortgage loan from Chase to Select Portfolio Servicing,

24

Inc. (“SPS”) on March 1, 2014. Plaintiffs have provided no further arguments to support their

25

motion.
26
27
28

While the notice to Fred Mesi may or may not increase Plaintiffs’ probability of success
on the merits of their claims, they have still made no arguments that denying their motion would
1

1

result in immediate and irreparable injury. Not only have Plaintiffs made no additional

2

arguments to show any alleged injury would be irreparable, but their motion also shows there is

3

no longer any immediate threat of injury. Plaintiffs inform the Court that SPS stopped the trustee

4

sale scheduled for December 11, 2015, and Plaintiffs provide no indication that another trustee

5

sale is currently scheduled. The Court denies the motion.
6

CONCLUSION

7
8
9
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No.
31) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated this 16th day ofday of December, 2015.
DATED: This 18th December 2015.
12
13
14

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2