Quach v. Bank of Am., Nat'l Ass'n

4 Citing cases

  1. Gold v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp.

    22-CV-1232 JLS (AGS) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022)

    ; Quach v. Bank of Am., Nat'l Ass'n, No. 5:12-CV-05037 EJD, 2012 WL 4498873, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) (โ€œ[T]he court must be mindful that foreclosure proceedings have commenced against Plaintiff due to her failure to pay according to the terms of the Deed of Trust she executed.

  2. Hueso v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

    Case No. 18-cv-1892-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    This weighs against granting Plaintiff's present motion. See Puruganan v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n, No. C 12-05168 SBA, 2012 WL 5503542, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012) (finding that plaintiffs had not shown that the balance of the equities favored them when they "made no showing that they have made any attempt to pay down that amount or otherwise bring themselves current on their debt."); Quach v. Bank of Am., Nat. Ass'n, No. C 12-5037 EJD, 2012 WL 4498873, at *4 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2012) ("[T]he court must be mindful that foreclosure proceedings have commenced against Plaintiff due to her failure to pay according to the terms of the Deed of Trust she executed. For this reason, Plaintiff's complaint of irregularity must be viewed with an eye of inequity.").

  3. Puruganan v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n

    Case No: C 12-05168 SBA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that plaintiffs had not shown that the balance of the equities favored them when they "made no showing that they have made any attempt to pay down that amount or otherwise bring themselves current on their debt."

    This weighs against Plaintiffs in terms of whether a TRO should issue. See Quach v. Bank of Am., Nat. Ass'n, No. C 12-5037 EJD, 2012 WL 4498873, at *4 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2012) ("the court must be mindful that foreclosure proceedings have commenced against Plaintiff due to her failure to pay according to the terms of the Deed of Trust she executed. For this reason, Plaintiff's complaint of irregularity must be viewed with an eye of inequity.").

  4. Purugan v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n

    Case No: C 12-5168 SBA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    As such, any exigency is of Plaintiffs' own making. See Quach v. Bank of Am., Nat. Ass'n, No. 12-5037 EJD, 2012 WL 4498873, at *4 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2012) (finding that an ex parte TRO to enjoin a foreclosure sale was not justified where plaintiffs were aware for months of the potential trustee's sale) (Davila, J.); William W. Schwarzer, et al., California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ยง 13:95 (The Rutter Group 2010) ("An important factor will be whether the applicant could have sought relief earlier by a motion for preliminary injunction, avoiding the necessity for a last-minute TRO. Delay in seeking relief may be evidence of laches . . . or negate the alleged threat of 'immediate' irreparable injury. . . . The court has discretion to deny the application on either ground"). In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse their failure to provide notice of the instant TRO motion to Defendants.