LYALL v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATION

Case No. C17-472 RAJ.

MARTA D. LYALL, Plaintiff, v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATION, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 48 U.S.C. § 1985
Cause: 48 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy / Deprivation Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Marta D. Lyall, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

U S Bank National Assocation, Defendant, represented by Joshua Schaer , RCO LEGAL, P.S..

Truman Title 2013 SC3 Title Trust, Defendant, represented by Joshua Schaer , RCO LEGAL, P.S..

Truman Capital Advisors LP, Defendant, represented by Joshua Schaer , RCO LEGAL, P.S..

Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua Schaer , RCO LEGAL, P.S..

University of Washington, Defendant, represented by Seth J. Berntsen , GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER.

Kim Turnow, Defendant, represented by Lars E. Neste , DEMCO LAW FIRM.

CWTitle, Defendant, represented by Lars E. Neste , DEMCO LAW FIRM.


ORDER

RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). Dkt. # 28. Defendants Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC and U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2013 SC3 Title Trust ("Defendants") oppose the motion. Dkt. # 32.

Plaintiff initiated this matter on March 23, 2017 with an unsuccessful TRO seeking to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing on her Shoreline property.1 Dkt. ## 2, 9. On May 2, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion, and the Court subsequently granted the Motion. Dkt. # 21. Plaintiff immediately appealed the Court's decision. Dkt. ## 22, 23. At the same time, Plaintiff moved the Court to vacate its Order. Dkt. # 25. Plaintiff now seeks to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing on her property pending the Ninth Circuit's decision. Dkt. # 28.

To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must "establish that [she] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [she] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [her] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The standard for a temporary restraining order is substantially the same. ProtectMarriage.com — Yes on 8 v. Courage Campaign, 680 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1228 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Winter); Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order standards are "substantially identical").

Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint is not ripe. Dkt. # 19. Accordingly, this TRO must proceed on the facts of her original Complaint. The Court already found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show success on the merits based on this Complaint. Dkt. # 9.

Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. Dkt. # 28.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction over the Memphis property. Dkt. # 9. For this reason, this Order and any future orders from this Court will only refer to Plaintiff's Shoreline property.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases