United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
RICHARD A. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion
Seeking Injunctive Relief Restraining the Foreclosure Sale of
Property. Dkt. # 7. Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. of
Washington (“Quality”) “takes no position
on the motion other than the instant non-judicial foreclosure
has been advanced in accordance with the requirement of the
Deed of Trust Act . . . .” Dkt. # 14. Defendant U.S.
Bank (“USB”) received service of the Motion, and
the Court specifically requested a response, Dkt. # 9, but
USB failed to respond. For the reasons that follow, the Court
GRANTS the Motion.
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
showed that she is likely to succeed on her claim under
Washington's Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”).
A CPA claim requires proof of five elements: “(1)
unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade
or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to
plaintiff in his or her business or property; (5)
causation.” Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v.
Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531, 533 (Wash. 1986).
“[A] claim under the Washington CPA may be predicated
upon a per se violation of statute, an act or practice that
has the capacity to deceive substantial portions of the
public, or an unfair or deceptive act or practice not
regulated by statute but in violation of public
interest.” Klem v. Washington Mut. Bank, 295
P.3d 1179, 1187 (Wash. 2013).
states that USB deceived her into defaulting on payments,
suggesting that this would lead her to be eligible for a loan
modification program. Dkt. # 1 (Complaint) at ¶ 15.
However, USB never accepted Plaintiff's loan modification
applications. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 21. Plaintiff
claims that USB's actions have caused her loan to grow
and interest to accrue at a larger rate. Id. at
¶ 27. The Court finds that USB's alleged behavior
carries a negative public interest impact. Though given the
opportunity, USB does not dispute these claims and therefore
the Court considers this an admission that Plaintiff's
claim has merit. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
will suffer irreparable harm if the foreclosure sale,
scheduled for February 16, 2018, see Dkt. # 14 at 3,
proceeds as scheduled. Moreover, the Court finds that the
balance of equities tips in Plaintiff's favor, and that
an injunction is in the public interest. Accordingly, the
Court issues a temporary restraining order enjoining the
non-judicial foreclosure sale of the real property commonly
known as 5700 141st St., S.W., Edmonds, Washington
asks the Court to waive the requirement to submit her monthly
payments to the Court registry. The Court declines the
request and orders Plaintiff to submit her monthly payments
of $2, 666.00 to the Court registry as required by RCW
61.24.130(1). The Court orders Plaintiff to submit her first
payment immediately upon receipt of this Order to satisfy her
payment burden from January. Plaintiff's next payment is
due on or before February 15, 2018, and she will be expected
to submit payments on or before the 15th of each month while
this Order is in place.
temporary restraining order will become effective upon formal
service of this order and will remain in effect pending
further order of this Court. Defendants are ordered to show
cause on or before February 5, 2018 why the Court should not
convert this temporary restraining order to a preliminary
 The Court premises its Order on the
alleged actions by USB, not by the Trustee.
 USB, after being properly served in
this matter and after being informed that the Court expected
a response to the pending Motion, failed to file any
responsive pleading. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
7(b)(2) (“Except for motions for summary judgment, if a
party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such
failure may be considered by the court as an admission that
the motion has merit.”). Due to this failure, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has met her burden at this stage and the
Court will issue a temporary restraining order.
 The Court need only find likelihood of
success on one claim. For the purpose of this Motion,
Plaintiff carried her burden on her CPA claim, and therefore
the Court need not analyze the remaining claims at this time.
See League of Wilderness Defs./Blue Mountains