The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Kathy Peterson Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO STAY EVICTION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO Application") and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction to Stay Eviction ("Preliminary Injunction Application"). For the following reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the TRO Application and DENIES the Preliminary Injunction Application.
Plaintiffs Sonia Martinez and Walter A. Martinez ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint against Defendant Countrywide Home Loans Reconstrust Company ("Defendant") listing purported causes of action under the following federal statutes: 15 U.S.C. § 1635, 12 C.F.R. § 226, 12 U.S.C. § 2601. Plaintiffs also assert a claim to "quiet title" and a claim under California Unfair Business Practices law. The dispute appears to center on the ownership of property located at 967 S. Barton Ct, Anaheim, CA 92808. With the instant Application, Plaintiffs request that the Court "restrai[n] and enjoi[n] defendants . . . from engaging in or performing any act to deprive Plaintiffs of ownership or possession of their real property, including but not limited to, unlawful detainer, eviction, selling Plaintiffs' home
MINUTES FORM 11 DOC Initials of Deputy Clerk kp to third parties, recording any deeds or mortgages regarding the property, or from otherwise taking any steps whatsoever to deprive Plaintiffs of ownership or possession of the [Subject Property]." Pl.'s TRO
"An application for a temporary restraining order involves the invocation of a drastic remedy which a court of equity ordinarily does not grant, unless a very strong showing is made of a necessity and desirability of such action." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , 103 F. Supp. 978, 980
Generally, courts grant equitable relief in the event of irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies. See Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Weinberer v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798 (1982) ("[T]he basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies."). Plaintiffs must satisfy additional requirements in order to be granted preliminary relief. "The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate 'that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'" Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). Alternatively, Courts have discretion to grant TROs where "a plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips strongly in plaintiff's favor." Alliance for Wild ...