Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sakda v. Government National Mortgage Association

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

June 4, 2019

ANACHAK SAKDA, KAYSONE SAKDA, Plaintiffs,
v.
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR GINNIE MAC REMIC TRUST 2015-111, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs' Application for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Declaratory Relief.[1] Dkt. #2. Plaintiffs do not provide any proof that any of the Defendants have been provided notice of this action or the Motion. Regardless, Plaintiffs do not satisfy the standards for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and the Court notes various inaccuracies between the Complaint and the Motion that cloud the factual and legal issues. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' Motion at this time.

         Plaintiffs' Motion is somewhat difficult to follow. As best the Court can gather, Plaintiffs own 26832 37th Avenue South in Kent, Washington, and executed a mortgage with Homestreet Bank on July 23rd/24th, 2015. Dkt. #2 at 3. Defendant Government National Mortgage Association is the current holder of the note and Defendant Alabama Housing Finance Authority appears to be the current servicer. Dkt. #2 at 3-4. Plaintiffs appear to have had difficulty satisfying their financial obligations, have unsuccessfully sought loan modifications, and are currently facing foreclosure of their property on June 7, 2019. Dkt. #2 at 1-4. Plaintiffs allege that the foreclosure sale should not continue because several irregularities in the assignment of the note make it unclear who currently owns the note. Dkt. #2 at 4-11. In all, Plaintiffs appear to argue that Homestreet Bank should not have approved their loan, that deficient and ineffective assignments bar the Defendants from foreclosing on the property, and that the Plaintiffs have been unfairly denied a loan modification or refinancing. Plaintiffs seek to prevent the foreclosure sale from going forward.

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court may issue a TRO

without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant's attorney 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).

         Here, Plaintiffs do not satisfy the requirements for issuance of a TRO without notice to the Defendants. Plaintiffs provide no certificates of service showing that Defendants have been served a copy of the Complaint or the Motion. Nor do Plaintiffs provide any indication of the efforts they have undertaken to provide Defendants with notice of this action and Motion or why notice should not be required. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1).

         Similarly, this Court's Local Civil Rules require notice.

Motions for temporary restraining orders without notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the adverse party are disfavored and will rarely be granted. Unless the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b) for issuance without notice are satisfied, the moving party must serve all motion papers on the opposing party before or contemporaneously with the filing of the motion and include a certificate of service with the motion. The motion must also include contact information for the opposing party's counsel or for an unrepresented party.

         LCR 65(b)(1). As a result, this Court's Local Civil Rules require that “the moving party must serve all motion papers on the opposing party before or contemporaneously with the filing of the motion and include a certificate of service with the motion.” LCR 65(b)(1). Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of the Court's local rules and the Court will deny the Motion on that basis.[2]

         Regardless, Plaintiffs' Motion fails to satisfy the standards applicable to the issuance of a TRO. To justify a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that a balance of equities tips in the favor of the moving party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Ninth Circuit employs a “sliding scale” approach, according to which these elements are balanced, “so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).[3]

         Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits, providing little in the way of legal analysis. Rather, Plaintiffs generally argue that their factual allegations will entitle them to relief. Plaintiffs also are not consistent in their analysis of what law applies in their case. See generally, Dkt. #2 (citing to California law with no evident basis for doing so, citing to New York Common Law of Trusts, and providing passing references to Washington and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.