Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Kaveh Khast v. Washington Mutual Bank; Jp Injunction Morgan

December 9, 2010

KAVEH KHAST,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; JP INJUNCTION MORGAN BANK; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

[Doc. Nos. 1 & 4]

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. Nos. 1 & 4. Plaintiff requests that the Court enjoin Defendants from foreclosing upon and selling his home. For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES the motion.

BACKGROUND

The factual background of this case, as described in Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, is fully set forth in the Court's October 26, 2010, order and will not be repeated herein.

On October 18, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants Washington Mutual Bank ("WaMu"), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., ("Chase" or "JPM Chase"), and California Reconveyance Company ("CRC"), within which Plaintiff also requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The Court heard oral argument in support of a temporary restraining on October 25, 2010. Defendants did not appear for that hearing or file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion.

The Court issued a temporary restraining order on October 26, 2010, enjoining Defendants from foreclosing upon and selling Plaintiff's home. The Court initially scheduled the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction for November 10, 2010, but continued the hearing upon Defendants' request to December 3, 2010.

Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on November 22, 2010. Doc. No. 20. On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of substitution of attorney, naming Ahren A. Tiller as counsel, and a reply in support of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. Nos. 21 & 22. The Court heard oral argument on December 3, 2010.

LEGAL STANDARD

In determining whether to grant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the Court applies the preliminary injunction standard articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., --- U.S. ---, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 374. Injunctive relief is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Id. at 375-76.

DISCUSSION

The Court issued a temporary restraining order based on two of Plaintiff's claims- violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and promissory estoppel-both of which stem from allegations of wrongdoing by WaMu. Chase argues that it is not a proper defendant for any claims arising from the actions of WaMu or its representatives. Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant CRC may face liability for WaMu's actions. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that he has brought his claims against the proper defendants.

On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision closed WaMu and appointed the FDIC as receiver. Defs.' Opp'n, at 4; see also Rosenfeld v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2010 WL 3155808, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2010). On the same date, Chase entered into a Purchase & Assumption Agreement ("P&A Agreement") with the FDIC, under which Chase assumed ownership and control of certain of WaMu's assets and liabilities.*fn1 Defs.' Opp'n, Ex. 5 (the P&A Agreement). Pursuant to the P&A Agreement, Chase acquired WaMu's interest in Plaintiff's loans.

Section 2.5 of the P&A Agreement expressly insulates Chase from "any liability associated with borrower claims for payment of or liability to any borrower for monetary relief, or that provide for any other form of relief to any borrower."*fn2 Thus, the FDIC, not Chase, is the proper successor-in-interest for "borrower claims." E.g., Caravantes v. Cal. Reconveyance Co., No. 10-CV-1407-IEG (AJB), 2010 WL 4055560, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010); Rosenfeld v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., ---F. Supp. 2d---, 2010 WL 3155808, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Jarvis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. CV 10-4184-GHK (FMOx), 2010 WL 2927276, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2010). Under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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