Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Larry v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 10, 2009

ROY LARRY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION; CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding in propria persona, filed a request for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on August 7, 2009, in which he appears to request a TRO that would prevent the sale of his home. The status of the referenced sale is unclear since Plaintiff indicates he became aware of "the Notice of Trustee Sale and the Notice of Defaults" the latter part of last year. Plaintiff argues if the action concerning his home is not halted he will suffer irreparable harm.

But Plaintiff's conclusory statements in his request do not demonstrate he has a probability of succeeding on the merits of his claims, or that equity favors preventing the harm about which he complains. A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir.2001)(discussing injunction standard).

Further, under the applicable local rule on injunctions, "[s]hould the Court find that the applicant unduly delayed in seeking injunctive relief, the Court may conclude that the delay [in seeking a TRO] contradicts the applicant's allegations of irreparable injury and may deny the motion solely on [that] ground." L.R. 65-231 (b). Since Plaintiff has not adequately explained why he has delayed seeking a TRO, it is denied on this ground. Lastly, Local Rule 65-231 (a) provides "[e]xcept in the most extraordinary of circumstances, no [TRO] shall be granted in the absence of actual notice to the affected party and/or counsel . . ." Here Plaintiff has not explained why he has not provided notice of the TRO he seeks. Therefore, the TRO is also denied on this ground.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff's request for a TRO is denied.

20090810

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.