You are on page 1of 4

1

2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court


Central District of California
Western Division

8
9
10
11
12

KARMEL ROE,

13
14
15
16
17
18

ED CV 11-01991 TJH (DTBx)


Plaintiff,

Temporary Restraining

v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Order
and
Order To Show Cause
re: Preliminary Injunction

19
20
21
22
23

The Court has considered Plaintiffs ex parte application for a temporary


restraining order (TRO), together with the moving and opposing papers.

24
25

An application for a temporary restraining order must satisfy the same legal

26

standard governing the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, a party


Temporary Restraining Order Page 1 of 4

seeking a temporary restraining order must establish each of the following elements:

(1) A likelihood of success on the merits, (2) A likelihood of irreparable injury to

the plaintiff if injunctive relief is not granted, (3) A balance of hardships favoring

the plaintiff, and (4) An advancement of the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res.

Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249, 261 (2008).

A sliding scale analysis is permitted where the elements of the preliminary

injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset

a weaker showing of another. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, serious questions going to the merits and

10

a balance of hardships that tip sharply toward Plaintiff can support injunctive

11

relief, provided that Plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable

12

injury and that the injunction is in the public interest. Alliance for the Wild Rockies,

13

632 F.3d at 1131-1132.

14
15

Despite the issue of bankruptcy discharge, namely whether Plaintiffs debt to

16

Defendants was discharged in bankruptcy case number 6:12-bk-26844-WJ, filed in

17

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, having

18

been the predominate issue raised in Plaintiffs moving papers, Defendants

19

opposition brief never discussed it. Instead, Defendants opposition brief, for the

20

most part, was merely a copy of Defendants pending motion to dismiss. Further,

21

Defendants opposition brief made factual assertions unsupported by evidence.

22
23
24
25
26

Having considered the ex parte application, as well as the briefs and evidence
submitted by the parties, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
1.

Serious questions exist going to the merits of this case, namely whether
Plaintiffs debt to Defendants was discharged in bankruptcy case

Temporary Restraining Order Page 2 of 4

number 6:12-bk-26844-WJ in the United States Bankruptcy Court for

the Central District of California;

2.

The balance of hardships tip sharply toward Plaintiff;

3.

Plaintiff has shown that without this restraining order she would suffer
irreparable injury; and

5
6

4.

This restraining order is in the public interest.

7
8

Accordingly,

9
10

It is Ordered that the ex parte application be, and hereby is, Granted.

11
12

Although a bond is typically required upon issuance of a temporary

13

restraining order, the Court may dispense with the bond requirement where there

14

is little or no harm to the party enjoined and where the plaintiff is unable to afford

15

to post such a bond. Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003).

16

If Plaintiffs debt was, indeed, discharged, then there is little to no harm to

17

Defendants from being enjoined. Further, based on the evidence before the Court,

18

it appears that Plaintiff is unable to afford to post a bond. Accordingly,

19
20
21

It is further Ordered that this temporary restraining order shall be issued


without a bond.

22
23

It Is further Ordered that, until November 28, 2014, or further order of this

24

Court, whichever is sooner, Bank of America, N.A. and The Bank of New York, and

25

their agents, representatives, employees, successors and assigns, and all those acting

26

in concert or participation with them, be, and hereby are, Temporarily Restrained

Temporary Restraining Order Page 3 of 4

from foreclosing on the real property located at 3445 West Elizabeth Avenue, San

Bernardino, California 92407 (the Property).

3
4

It is Further Ordered that Defendants shall appear before the Honorable Terry

J. Hatter, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of

California, in Courtroom 17 of the United States Courthouse at 312 North Spring

Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, on Monday, November 24, 2014, at 2:00

p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, to show cause, if any, why an

order should not be entered, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure, preliminarily enjoining them from foreclosing on the Property.

11
12

It is further Ordered that:

13

1.

Defendants written opposition, if any, to the issuance of a preliminary

14

injunction shall be filed and served no later than 12:00 p.m. on

15

Thursday, November 20, 2014;

16

2.

Plaintiffs written reply, if any, to Defendants written opposition shall

17

be filed and served no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 21,

18

2014; and

19
20

3.

Oral arguments will be heard at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 24,


2014.

21
22

November 18, 2014

23
24
25

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.


Senior United States District Judge

26

Temporary Restraining Order Page 4 of 4

You might also like