UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
April 18, 2011
MARGARITA M. SANCHEZ,
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
AND SETTING WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., NDEX WEST,
LLC, AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING RENEWED REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER DATE FOR DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPOSNE TO OSC
On April 14, 2011, this Court issued an order denying an ex parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) seeking to enjoin a foreclosure sale set for April 15, 2011.
See Dkt. No. 15. The Court found that Plaintiff had not articulated a likelihood of success on the 20 merits of her claim, and that Plaintiff's delay in bringing the application weighed against the 21 fairness of granting her request. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause why her case 22 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of her failure to oppose Motions to Dismiss 23 and Strike filed on March 22, 2011.
Today, April 18, 2011, Plaintiff has filed a "renewed" ex parte Application for a TRO 25 enjoining the sale, which she states has been re-scheduled for April 19, 2011 (tomorrow). In the 26 renewed Application, Plaintiff does not raise any new, persuasive legal or factual bases indicating a 27 likelihood of success on the merits and thus justifying a TRO. Because Plaintiff's renewed Application does not change the Court's analysis, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for a TRO 2 for the same reasons set forth in the April 14, 2011 Order.*fn1
Plaintiff has also filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. See Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiff titled this document "Response to OSC Re Dismissal of Action and Opposition to Mtn to Dismiss."
However, the Court noted in the April 14, 2011 Order that Plaintiff was not permitted to file a late Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss or the Motion to Strike without leave of Court. To the extent Plaintiff's response advances arguments in opposition to those Motions, it is not properly before 8 the Court. Plaintiff must seek leave to file Oppositions to those Motions. Plaintiff's response to 9 the OSC makes serious allegations that Defendants have falsified proofs of service in this matter 10 and have otherwise misled Plaintiff's counsel. Defendants may respond to Plaintiff's response by April 26, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.