Bigelow v. Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 JAMES A. BIGELOW,
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES,
INC., et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

CASE NO. C14-5798 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

14
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff James Bigelow’s (“Bigelow”) ex
15
parte motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 1). The Court has considered the
16
pleadings filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies
17
the motion for the reasons stated herein.
18
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
19
On October 7, 2014, Bigelow filed a verified complaint against Defendants
20
Northwest Trustee Services, Inc., Green Tree Servicing, LLC, and Mortgage Electronic
21
Registration Systems, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections
22

ORDER - 1

1 Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), the Washington Deed of Trust Act,
2 RCW Chapter 61.24 (“DTA”), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW
3 Chapter 19.86 (“CPA”). Dkt. 1. Bigelow also filed an ex parte motion for a temporary
4 restraining order to prevent the foreclosure of his home scheduled for October 10, 2014.
5 Dkt. 2.
6
7

II. DISCUSSION
In this case, Bigelow’s motion fails for a number of procedural and substantive

8 reasons. First, the Court is only authorized to grant an ex parte motion if (1) specific
9 facts are alleged showing that immediate harm will be suffered if relief is not granted
10 before the adverse party may be heard and (2) the movant states his efforts to give notice
11 and reasons why notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Bigelow has
12 failed to submit any fact showing that relief should be granted without notice or that
13 notice is an unreasonable requirement. The scheduled foreclosure is three days from now
14 and Bigelow provided all Defendants’ addresses in his verified complaint. Therefore, the
15 Court denies Bigelow’s motion for failure to meet the procedural requirements under the
16 rules of procedure.
17

Second, the only claim entitling Bigelow to injunctive relief is his DTA claim.

18 The FDCPA and the CPA claim entitle Biglelow only to monetary relief. The DTA
19 claim, however, entitles Bigelow to injunctive relief if Defendants have failed to follow
20 the strict procedures set forth in the DTA. Under the DTA, the Court shall require, as a
21 condition of granting any injunction, that the applicant deposit with the Court the amount
22 due on the obligation secured by the deed of trust and the Court may not restrain a

ORDER - 2

1 scheduled foreclosure unless the applicant has given the trustee five days notice of the
2 injunction hearing. RCW 61.24.130. Bigelow has failed to show that he will make the
3 requisite deposit or that he gave the trustee five days notice of any hearing or request for
4 a hearing on an injunction. Therefore, the Court denies Bigelow’s motion for failure to
5 comply with the DTA.
6
7

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Bigelow’s motion for a temporary

8 restraining order is DENIED.
9

Dated this 7th day of October, 2014.

A

10
11

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3