UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
August 9, 2011
TERI H. NGUYEN,
BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, AND DOES 1 TO 99,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Court United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING SECOND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER against Defendants, all arising out of the attempted foreclosure of property located at 15520 Quito Plaintiff states that a Notice of Sale was recorded on June 30, 2011, setting an auction date of August 2, 2011. On July 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary 22 restraining order (TRO). Plaintiff sought an injunction preventing the foreclosure sale from going 23 forward on August 2, 2011. On July 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a declination to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. On July 27, 2011, the case was reassigned to the undersigned 25 judge. This Court denied Plaintiff's TRO application on July 29, 2011. 26
On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff Nguyen filed a complaint asserting various causes of action Road, Monte Sereno, California (the Property). See Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.). In the Complaint, 20
On August 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On August 8, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a renewed ex parte application for TRO (Second TRO Application), stating that the 28 foreclosure sale had been rescheduled for August 10, 2011, and seeking to enjoin the rescheduled sale from going forward. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Second TRO Application, and finds 2 that Plaintiff has simply re-asserted the same bases for relief asserted in the first application for 3
TRO. For example, Plaintiff asserts that "[t]he party attempting to foreclose here never owned the 4
Note and therefore cannot foreclose." The Court rejected this argument in its Order denying the 5 first TRO application. To the extent Plaintiff advances new arguments (such as that the mortgage 6 loan is void or voidable because defendant Bank of America intended for Plaintiff to default), the 7
Court finds that these arguments do not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of any 8 claim. 9
Plaintiff's Second TRO Application is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.