Whitley et al v. The Ritchie Group et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 43 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
JED W. WHITLEY, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
THE RITCHIE GROUP, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C17-0673RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion for Temporary Restraining

15

Order Pursuant to LCR 65(b) and FRCP 65.” Dkt. # 43. On April 28, 2017, defendants recorded

16

notices of trustee sale regarding two properties in which plaintiffs have an interest. The sales

17

were scheduled for August 4, 2017. Plaintiffs filed this action on May 1, 2017, asserting RICO

18

claims arising out of defendants’ attempts to foreclose on their properties. Three days before the

19

scheduled sale, plaintiffs filed this motion for injunctive relief enjoining and restraining the sale.

20

Although plaintiffs’ motion is captioned as a motion for a temporary restraining order,

21

notice was given to defendants through the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. Plaintiffs make no

22

effort to explain why this motion was not characterized as a motion for preliminary injunction

23

and noted for consideration on the fourth Friday after filing, as specified in LCR 7(d)(3). Nor do

24

they explain why they waited three months to seek injunctive relief. While the Court is cognizant

25

of the harm that can arise from the wrongful foreclosure and sale of a person’s home, our entire

26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

1

system of jurisprudence depends on the assumption that, absent extraordinary circumstances,

2

both parties will have reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Court takes

3

action. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Although

4

notice has been given in this case, plaintiffs filed a twenty-five page memorandum addressing

5

complex RICO issues to which defendants would have only one day to respond if there were any

6

hope that the Court could issue a decision before the sale occurred. Absent some exigency not of

7

plaintiffs’ own making, the Court will not excuse the failure to comply with the local noting

8

rules despite the presumed harm that will arise from the sale of plaintiffs’ properties.

9
10

The motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

11
12

Dated this 1st day of August, 2017.

13

A
Robert S. Lasnik

14

United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

-2-