Lyall v. U S Bank National Assocation et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 28 Motion for TRO signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (PM)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 MARTA D LYALL, 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 CASE NO. C17-472 RAJ U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATION, et al., 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary 18 19 20 21 Restraining Order (“TRO”). Dkt. # 28. Defendants Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC and U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2013 SC3 Title Trust (“Defendants”) oppose the motion. Dkt. # 32. Plaintiff initiated this matter on March 23, 2017 with an unsuccessful TRO 22 23 24 seeking to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing on her Shoreline property. 1 Dkt. ## 2, 9. On May 2, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). 25 1 Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction over the Memphis property. Dkt. # 9. For this reason, this Order and any future orders from this Court will only 27 refer to Plaintiff’s Shoreline property. 26 ORDER- 1 1 Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion, and the Court subsequently granted 2 the Motion. Dkt. # 21. Plaintiff immediately appealed the Court’s decision. Dkt. ## 22, 3 23. At the same time, Plaintiff moved the Court to vacate its Order. Dkt. # 25. Plaintiff 4 now seeks to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing on her property pending the Ninth 5 Circuit’s decision. Dkt. # 28. 6 To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must “establish that [she] is likely 7 to succeed on the merits, that [she] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 8 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [her] favor, and that an injunction is 9 in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 10 374 (2008). The standard for a temporary restraining order is substantially the same. 11 - Yes on 8 v. Courage Campaign, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1228 12 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Winter); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 13 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that preliminary injunction and temporary 14 restraining order standards are “substantially identical”). 15 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint is not ripe. Dkt. # 19. 16 Accordingly, this TRO must proceed on the facts of her original Complaint. The Court 17 already found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show success on the merits based 18 on this Complaint. Dkt. # 9. 19 Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Dkt. # 28. 20 21 Dated this 9th day of June, 2017. 22 A 23 24 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 25 26 27 ORDER- 2

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?