Long v. Halliday et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 19 Motion for TRO; denying 20 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 10/12/2017. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DARWIN LEROY LONG,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
PAUL M. HALLIDAY, JR., as Successor
Trustee of the Deed of Trust; and WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., Trustee for Option
One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-6, AssetBacked Certificates, Series 2007-6, as
Successor Lender on the Promissory Note and
Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust,
Case No. 2:17-cv-1025-DB
Judge Dee Benson
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 19]. Having reviewed the Plaintiff’s written argument, the relevant
facts and the law, Court finds that a hearing on this matter would be neither helpful nor
necessary. The Court hereby enters the following Order.
On September 13, 2017, this case was removed to this Court from state court. [Dkt. 2].
On September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a motion for temporary restraining
order which this Court denied. [Dkt.9, 10]. On September 22, 2017, Mr. David D. Bennett filed
a notice of appearance as attorney for the Plaintiff. [Dkt. 11]. The Plaintiff then filed a motion to
remand this action to state court. [Dkt. 12]. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 15]. Neither of those motions is currently ripe for decision by the
Court. On December 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed another motion for temporary restraining order
or preliminary injunction and requested an expedited hearing on that motion. [Dkt. 19, 20].
By its motion, the Plaintiff seeks to stop the sale of his property now scheduled to be
foreclosed upon on October 16, 2017 at 9:45 a.m. The Plaintiff argues that the statute of
limitation has expired on the Defendants’ right to foreclose.
Issuance of a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy, the right to relief must
be clear and unequivocal.” Valley Community Preservation Comm’n v. Mineta, 373 F.3d 1078,
1083-84 (10th Cir. 2004). A party seeking a preliminary injunction has the burden of showing:
(1) he has a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case;” (2) he will suffer
irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is denied; (3) any threatened injury outweighs the
harm to the other party under the preliminary injunction; and (4) the injunction is “not adverse to
the public interest.” Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 955 (10th Cir. 2001).
Having considered the relevant facts, law and arguments of the parties, the Court finds
that Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The Court therefore
declines to exercise the extraordinary relief of issuing a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s
motion [Dkt. 19] is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing [Dkt. 20]
is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
This 12th day of October, 2017.
Dee V. Benson
United States District Judge
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?