Houle v. Wells Fargo Bank NA
Filing
2
ORDER: For the reasons herein, Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 1/28/2025. (MMG) This was mailed to: Plaintiff.
3-CV-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROBERT T. HOULE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case # 25-CV-06053-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER
WELLS FARGO BANK NA,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
On January 24, 2025, Plaintiff Robert T. Houle (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Wells
Fargo Bank NA, as “Trustee for Aegis Asset Backed Securities” (“Defendant”), in which he
alleged that Defendant fraudulently created and forged documents that assigned Plaintiff’s
mortgage to Defendant. ECF No. 1. Within his complaint, 1 Plaintiff requests a temporary
restraining order enjoining Defendant from pursuing a foreclosure auction on his home, and an
order directing Defendant to show cause why they should not be enjoined from pursuing the
foreclosure. 2 ECF No. 1 at 5.
1
Although Plaintiff attached a proposed temporary restraining order to his complaint, Plaintiff has not, at time of
writing, filed a separate motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 1-5. This puts the Court in an awkward
position, as the Plaintiff has made his desire for a temporary restraining order clear. The auction on Plaintiff’s property
is scheduled for January 30, 2025, leaving little time for Plaintiff to properly file a motion before it takes place.
Because of these unusual circumstances, and because the Court “is obliged to construe [pro se] pleadings liberally,”
McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), the Court chooses to construe Plaintiff’s filings as a motion
for a temporary restraining order and addresses it accordingly.
To the extent Plaintiff requests an “Order to Show Cause,” under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), or otherwise,
Plaintiff’s request is not procedurally or substantively proper because Rule 41(b) governs involuntary dismissal of an
action due to noncompliance with the Court’s directives or failure to prosecute and it is Plaintiff’s burden to show
entitlement to relief at both the pleading phase and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which governs the
issuance of a temporary restraining order. The Court accordingly construes Plaintiff’s motion as one for a temporary
restraining order.
2
1
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a temporary
restraining order.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint, unless otherwise stated. Defendant
seeks to hold a foreclosure auction on Plaintiff’s home, located at 1108 Cheese Factory Road,
Honeoye Falls, New York, 14472, on January 30, 2025. ECF No. 1 ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant has “no standing to pursue such an auction” because the auction is justified by “forgery,
fraud and false papers.” Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff asserts that the signature on the assignment documents
underlying his mortgage from contract manager Leticia Arias, “a well known robo signer,” was
forged. Id. ¶¶ 6-10. Plaintiff points to alleged discrepancies between Arias’s signature on the
assignment documents and other notarized documents, which Plaintiff provides as exhibits, to
support his claim of forgery. Id. ¶¶ 7-8; see ECF No. 2. Because Arias’s signature was forged,
Defendant is “not the true owner of the note and mortgage” and has “no standing” to pursue the
foreclosure. Id. ¶ 6. 3
DISCUSSION
“In the Second Circuit, the standard for issuance of a temporary restraining order is the
same as the standard for a preliminary injunction.” Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 22-CV-986, 2022
WL 5239895, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2022). “A party seeking a preliminary injunction must
ordinarily establish (1) irreparable harm; (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b)
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its claims to make them fair ground for
Plaintiff previously filed a complaint in which he also sought a temporary restraining order because of Arias’s
allegedly forged signature. See Houle v. Wells Fargo, NA, 23-CV-6634, ECF No. 1. In November 2023, the Court
denied his request and dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Houle v. Wells Fargo,
NA, No. 23-CV-6634, 2023 WL 7497616 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2023).
3
2
litigation, plus a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party; and (3)
that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.” De Jesus Moreno v. Nielsen, 460 F. Supp.
3d 291, 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s grounds for relief lack merit, and so the Court “need only address the
second prong.” Sibley v. Watches, No. 19-CV-6517, 2022 WL 17090037, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Nov.
21, 2022). “To establish a likelihood of success on the merits, a plaintiff must show that it is more
likely than not to prevail on its claims, or, in other words, that the probability of prevailing is better
than fifty percent.” Gazzola v. Hochul, No. 22-CV-1134, 2022 WL 17485810, at *9 (N.D.N.Y.
Dec. 7, 2022) (internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order must be denied. Plaintiff’s request
hinges on his claim that a signature on the assignment documents for his mortgage was forged,
and therefore the assignment itself is invalid. ECF No. 1 ¶ 6. However, courts that have addressed
this issue have squarely rejected the notion that an assignment can be invalidated by the signature
of an alleged “robo signer.” Lawson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 14-CV-1301, 2015 WL
881252, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2015) (“Plaintiff’s argument that the Assignments are ‘fraudulent’
because they were signed by a known ‘robo signer’ has been repeatedly rejected.”). Even if the
alleged inconsistencies demonstrated some issue with Arias’s signature, “[t]his evidence does not
refute the validity of the assignment.” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Willis, No. 10-CV-5454, 2011 WL
3704428, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2011).
That the contract manager’s signature may be
inconsistent has no impact on whether the “legal documents establish that [Defendant] had
authority to assign interests,” and Plaintiff does not contest that Defendant otherwise had the
authority to make an assignment absent the alleged forgery. Id. Plaintiff cites no authority stating
that an assignment can be made ineffective due to the actions of the signing contract manager, nor
3
can the Court find any. Accordingly, he has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits
or any sufficiently serious question of law and his request for a temporary restraining order is
DENIED on this ground. See De Jesus Moreno, 460 F. Supp. 3d at 297.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2025
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
United States District Judge
Western District of New York
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?