United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ALLAL K. AMRANI, et al., Plaintiffs,
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's request for a
temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (Dkt. #6) and
request to seal (Dkt. #9). Plaintiff, Allal Amrani, principally
seeks to restrain a foreclosure sale of real estate located
at 20704 Des Moines Memorial Drive, SeaTac, Washington. Dkt.
#7 at ¶ 1. If not restrained, Plaintiff indicates that
the foreclosure will occur on June 16, 2019. Dkt. #6.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint and requested a TRO on the same
day. Plaintiff's request is in the form of a one-page
letter that provides, in substance:
RE: Urgency - Emergency
My house-residence property is in foreclosure and it is
posted for online auction on the 16th of the month.
My Complaint is to stop the foreclosure and the auction and
therefore it is urgent and of emergency nature that my case
is reviewed immediately and hope it will be entered into
record immediately, and my fee waiver should also be reviewed
immediately [and] hope it is approved.
Id. (typographic alterations for
clarity). However, Plaintiff has also verified the
allegations of his Complaint and has filed an affidavit and
exhibits. Dkts. #5 and #7. The Court therefore considers the
three filings collectively as a Motion for TRO
(“Motion”). However, upon review, the Court does
not find it appropriate to grant Plaintiff's requested
relief at this time and accordingly denies the Motion.
alleges that he owns a piece of property in SeaTac,
Washington (the “Property”). Dkt. #7 at ¶ 1.
The Property was acquired in 2006, by one of the defendants
in pursuit of a joint business venture with Plaintiff.
Id. at ¶ 8-12. The Property was later
transferred to the business venture, but payments were
missed, and the mortgage went into default in 2011.
Id. at ¶ 19.
the years, Plaintiff has recorded several quit claim deeds
related to the Property and has recorded a “UCC
Development Real Estate Services Mechanic's Lien”
against the Property. Id. at ¶ 26; Dkt. #7-4.
Concurrently, several of the defendants have continued to
seek foreclosure of the Property and have continued to send
Plaintiff and his former partner notices at the Property. On
December 16, 2016, unspecified defendants filed a complaint
in King County Superior Court seeking to foreclose on the
Property. Dkt. #7 at ¶ 28. A guardian ad litem
(“GAL”) was appointed for Plaintiff due to
significant health issues that were caused, at least in part,
by the mortgage default. Id. at ¶¶ 39-30.
Ultimately, the GAL took actions that Plaintiff maintains
were not in his best interest, including placing
Plaintiff's interest in the Property into a special needs
trust-for which the GAL was the trustee. Id.; Dkt.
#7-5. Plaintiff believes that the GAL, a defendant, has acted
to the benefit of several of the other defendants in this
action. Dkt. #7 at ¶ 34.
indicates that a foreclosure sale is now scheduled to take
place on June 16, 2019. Dkt. #6. Plaintiff's Complaint
lays out thirteen causes of action against the ten named
defendants. Dkt. #5. Plaintiff's letter requesting relief
does not clearly identify what claims he relies upon for
injunctive relief. Dkt. #6. However, Plaintiff's
affidavit appears to more particularly identify bases upon
which the foreclosure sale cannot proceed. Dkt. #7. These
appear to include questions as to the ownership of the
Property, questions as to the actions of the GAL, questions
as to whether his UCC lien is entitled to super-priority such
that it must be satisfied before any foreclosure, and whether
irregularities in the assignment of notes and deeds of trust
preclude defendants' standing to foreclose. Id.
at ¶¶ 35-44.
Legal Standard for a TRO
support 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.
seeking a TRO without providing written or oral notice to the
adverse party must satisfy additional requirements.
Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 ...