United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER RE: DKT. NO. 5
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1, 2018, plaintiff Keyhan Mohanna, individually and as the
trustee of the Keyhan Mohanna Revocable Trust Dated July 8,
2003, filed this suit against defendants Carrington Mortgage
Services, LLC and Christiana Trust, who have allegedly
attempted to collect debts and foreclose on a Deed of Trust
(DOT) secured by plaintiff's condominium (Property)
without authority. Mohanna asserts causes of action for
violations of: (i) the California Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act; (ii) the Federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); (iii) California Civil Code
section 2924.17 (Homeowners Bill of Rights, HBOR); (iv)
intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and (v)
violation of California's Unfair Business Practices Act,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 (UCL). Defendant
Carrington is alleged to be a mortgage servicer and Cristiana
Trust is alleged to be a trustee for a trust, presumably that
holds the ultimate interest in the Deed of Trust on
Mohanna's Property. Complaint 4-5.
basis of each of Mohanna's claims is that the defendants
do not have authority to collect on his mortgage debt or
foreclose because Mohanna contests the “contents and
truthfulness” of Assignments of Deeds of Trust (ADOTs)
that were recorded between 2011 and 2016 that purported to
transfer rights to the debt between different entities.
Complaint 9-11, 19. The most recent ADOT identified by
plaintiff is an August 5, 2016 ADOT, transferring the
interest under the DOT to defendant Cristiana Trust.
Complaint 10. On August 13, 2015, a Notice of Default (NOD)
was recorded against the Property. Plaintiff alleges the NOD
“falsely represents that Defendants have the legal
right and authority to proceed with” foreclosure.
Id. 10-11. Plaintiff alleges that on April 10, 2018,
defendants recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale (NOTS).
Plaintiff admits that he has not paid or arranged to make his
mortgage debt current, but argues that defendants could not
issue the NOD or NOTS because they did not have the
“legal right to do so.” Complaint 11, 12, 14. He
also alleges that defendants have misrepresented the status
of his debt and the amount of fees owed, assessed illegal
fees and charges, and reported false information to credit
bureaus. Id. 16-18. Defendants violated
California's HBOR, according to plaintiff, by issuing the
inaccurate NOD and NOTS without legal authority to do so.
Complaint 20-21. The IIED and UCL claims are based on the
same alleged conduct.
3, 2018, Mohanna filed an application for a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO), seeking to stop a trustee's sale
of his Property that is set for Wednesday May 9, 2018 at 2:00
p.m. The NOTS was recorded on April 10, 2018. Mohanna asserts
that he waited to file this Complaint and TRO because he was
hoping he would be able to convince defendants to stop the
foreclosure sale without judicial intervention. However, he
does not identify what, if any, steps he took in that regard.
TRO at 7.
merits, the TRO rests on one claim - defendants should not be
allowed to foreclose on his Property because they lack the
legal authority to do so, presumably because of some
unspecified fault or problem with the ADOTs. The only
statutory authority identified by plaintiff that specifically
authorizes an injunction to stop a non-judicial foreclosure
is California's HBOR, Cal. Civil Code § 2924.17. TRO
at 11. That section provides that a declaration recorded in
connection with a “notice of default, notice of sale,
assignment of a deed of trust, or substitution of trustee
recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer in connection
with a foreclosure” “shall be accurate and
complete and supported by competent and reliable
evidence.” Cal. Civil Code § 2924.17(a). In
addition, that section requires that “a mortgage
servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and
reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower's default
and the right to foreclose, including the borrower's loan
status and loan information.” Id., §
2924.17(b). Plaintiff then asserts that
“Defendants have failed to do so, ” but does not
state any facts showing how defendants have failed to comply
with section 2924.17's requirements. TRO at 12.
to his allegations in the Complaint, it appears
plaintiff's theory is that the ADOTs that ultimately
transferred the interest in the DOT on his Property to
defendant Cristiana Trust were not complete and truthful.
But, as in the TRO papers, plaintiff's Complaint provides
no facts or reasons showing why the ADOTs are untruthful or
otherwise invalid. He simply asserts they are and as such
asserts that defendants lack authority to collect on his debt
or foreclose on his Property.
both the Complaint and the TRO, there are no facts alleged
concerning how the ADOTS were defective or why defendants
lack legal authority to foreclose on his
Property. Because no facts are alleged, plaintiff
has wholly failed to show he has any chance of success, much
less that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
claims. Nor has he shown that there are serious questions
going to the merits of his claims to justify extraordinary
injunctive reliefPlaintiffs motion for a TRO, therefore, is
IS SO ORDERED.
 The specific Property at issue is 1405
Greenwich Street, Unit #5, San Francisco, California.
 This is at least the fifth case
Mohanna has filed in this Court against financial
institutions that claimed interests in mortgages, mortgage
payments, or deeds of trust on units in the same condominium
complex that were or are owned by Mohanna and/or his trust.
In HSBC Bank USA NA v. Keyhan Mohanna, Case. No.
15-cv-2130, Mohanna removed to this Court a case brought by
HSBC in state court in order to rescind a mistaken
reconveyance and reinstate the Deed of Trust on Mohanna's
Unit #3 in the complex. I remanded that case to state court
on August 13, 2015. Id., Dkt. No. 38. In 2016,
Mohanna filed three actions against two institutions
regarding mortgages on other units in the complex;
Mohanna v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 16-1033,
Mohanna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 16-1035,
and Mohanna v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Case. No.
16-1036. In the three 2016 cases plaintiff sought rescission
of his mortgages under the Federal Truth in Lending Act
(TILA). In the two actions against Wells Fargo, Mohanna
sought TROs to enjoin an impending trustee's sale on one
unit and an unlawful detainer on the other, on the basis that
Wells Fargo never acquired ownership of his debts and because
Mohanna had rescinded the loans under TILA. See Case
No. 16-1033 Dkt. No. 12 at 3. The TROs were denied and the
three cases were eventually dismissed for failure to
 In his TRO papers, plaintiff argues
that both defendants are debt collectors under the federal
FDCPA and the California RFDCPA but does not identify
how those defendants violated those statutes, other
than his allegation that they lack “authority” to
collect on his mortgage debt. Nor does plaintiff identify any
provision in those statutes giving me authority to enjoin a
trustee's sale to prevent or remedy any
 Attached to the Complaint is a
declaration prepared for a Superior Court case between 3H
Renovation Services and BSI Financial Services regarding the
Property. It is unclear why this declaration was included as
an exhibit to the Complaint in this case, but it does not
relate in any way to the allegations against the two
defendants in this case. There is also an unsigned Property
Securitization Analysis Report attached as an exhibit to the
Complaint. But ...