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)

Download PDF
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-

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?