No. 2:17-cv-1446-GEB-EFB.

ERIC and HARRIET STRICKLEN, Plaintiffs, v. BAYVIEW SERVICING, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Injunction
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Eric Stricklen, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Harriet Stricklen, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on July 12, 2017, seeking to have Defendants enjoined from selling, foreclosing on, "or in anyway [sic] taking control of" Plaintiff's real property in Fairfield, California ("the Property"). Mot. for TRO 1:23-2:2, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff makes a conclusory argument that the issuance of a TRO is justified "on the grounds set forth in the accompanying Complaint." Id. at 2:5-6. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that Defendants have failed to satisfy procedural requirements applicable to the foreclosure proceeding at issue, and Plaintiff indicates that Defendants intend to sell the Property on August 2, 2017. Compl. 3:5-28, 4:11-13, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also alleges in the Complaint that the sale will "cause great and irreparable injury" because the Property "will be sold without warning". Id. at 4:2.

Plaintiff has not shown entitlement to consideration of the sought after injunctive relief since Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants have been notified about the request. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) prescribes that a TRO may issue "without . . . notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if" the movant avers "specific facts . . . clearly show[ing] that immediate and irreparable injury . . . will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition" and "certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff's motion does not contain the referenced averments. Further, Plaintiff has not averred "specific facts . . . clearly show[ing]" that Plaintiff will suffer "immediate and irreparable injury . . . before [Defendants] can be heard in opposition [to the sought TRO]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for a TRO is denied.


1000 Characters Remaining 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