Theiss et al v. Citimortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER: Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 6 at this time. Because plaintiffs have not demonstrated an imminent threat of harm, I do not inquire into the merits of the underlying claims in plaintiffs' complaint. Signed on 1/17/2013 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CHARLA L. THEISS AND RAYMOND J.,
THEISS,
Plaintiffs,

Civ. No.

6:12-CV-22~PA

ORDER
v.

CITIMORTGAGE INC. As Trustee
for Citi Mortgage Backed
Securities 2003-17 Trust
Mortgage Pass Through
Certificates, Series 2003-17,
et al.,
Defendants.

PANNER, J.

Pro Se plaintiffs move for a Temporary Restraining Order
prohibiting defendants from initiating foreclosure proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit has described the standards for deciding
whether to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction:
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party
must show either (1) a combination of probable success
_on the merits and the possibility of irreparable
1

- ORDER

injury, or (2) that serious questions are raised and
the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.
These formulations are not different tests but
represent two points on a sliding scale in which the
degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability
of success on the merits decreases.
Under either
formulation, the moving party must demonstrate a
significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective
of the magnitude of the injury.
Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of Anchorage Sch. Dist.,
868 F.2d 1085, 1088

(9th Cir. 1989)

(citations omitted). The

speculative risk of a possible injury is not enough; the
threatened harm must be imminent. Caribbean Marine Services Co.,
Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668,

674

(9th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 65 (b) ( 1) (A) . The standards for issuing a temporary
restraining order are similar to those required for a preliminary
injunction.

Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes

Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Ca. 1995).
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any threat of imminent harm.
Although plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the sale of the
property, it appears defendants are not currently proceeding with
foreclosure proceedings. See Compl.,

~

70 ("Defendants will

eventually move to have the Subject Property foreclosed.").

/Ill
/Ill
/Ill
/Ill
/Ill
2

- ORDER".

Plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (#7) is
DENIED at this time. Because plaintiffs have not demonstrated an
imminent threat of harm,

I do not inquire into the merits of the

underlying claims in plaintiffs' complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

/1

day of January, 2013.

OWEN M. FANNER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3

- ORDER