2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 PLUYD COLEMAN and SAHAR LEWIS, individually, Case No. 2:25-CV-00791-ART-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS 7 vs. FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
8 PNC BANK, N.A.,
9 Defendant. 10 Plaintiffs Sahar Lewis and Pluyd Coleman bring this action against 11 Defendant PNC Bank, challenging the foreclosure and nonjudicial foreclosure 12 sale of property owned by the Coleman Family Revocable Living Trust (“Trust”).1 13 (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiffs first filed this action in the Eighth Judicial District Court, 14 State of Nevada, and Defendant removed the case to federal court. (ECF No. 1.) 15 Plaintiffs filed several motions for preliminary relief. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16 13, 14, 15.) The Court issued an order finding that the Trust could not proceed 17 in this action represented by a non-lawyer and gave Plaintiffs thirty days to find 18 legal counsel and enter an appearance. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiffs then filed another 19 emergency motion, which appeared to request a court order staying eviction 20 pending the deadline to enter an appearance of counsel. (ECF No. 23.) The Court 21 set a telephonic hearing on that motion, which was continued to due to technical 22 difficulties. (ECF Nos. 25, 26, 34.) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which 23 they assert claims as individuals, and not on behalf of the Trust, as well as a 24 renewed motion for a temporary restraining order.2 (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) The Court 25 1 This action was originally brought by Sahar Lewis and Pluyd Coleman as 26 trustees on behalf of the Trust. (ECF No. 1-3.) In their first amended complaint, 27 Plaintiffs now assert claims on behalf of themselves as individuals. (ECF No. 27.) 2 At oral argument and in their motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that 28 1 held a hearing on June 12, 2025, on Plaintiffs’ emergency motions, which the 2 Court now considers. 3 I. Factual Background 4 Plaintiff Sahar Lewis acquired the subject property located at 3139 5 Belvedere Dr., Henderson, Nevada, in December 2021. (ECF No. 29-1.) That same 6 month, Ms. Lewis acquired a home loan from North American Financial 7 Corporation, secured with a deed of trust. (ECF No. 29-2.) In 2023, Ms. Lewis 8 transferred the property via quitclaim deed to the Coleman Family Revocable 9 Living Trust, of which she and her husband Pluyd Coleman are trustees. (ECF 10 No. 29-5.) In June 2024, the deed of trust was assigned to PNC Bank. (ECF No. 11 29-3.) At oral argument, Ms. Lewis stated that she stopped making monthly 12 mortgage payments sometime before April 2024. In November of 2024, a Notice 13 of Breach and Default on the loan was sent to Ms. Lewis, which was recorded on 14 December 2, 2024. (ECF No. 29-6.) Sometime around March 3, 2025, Ms. Lewis 15 sent what she refers to as a “negotiable instrument” to PNC Bank, which Plaintiffs 16 allege discharged their debt. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) Plaintiffs subsequently brought 17 this lawsuit in state court, and the Defendants removed the case to this Court. 18 (ECF No. 1.) On May 9, 2025, a nonjudicial foreclosure sale occurred and title 19 was transferred on May 16. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) 20 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint brings claims for breach of contract, 21 securities fraud, wrongful foreclosure, and a claim to quiet title. (ECF No. 27.) 22 Plaintiffs’ renewed emergency motion seeks a temporary restraining 23 order/preliminary injunction preventing the transfer of property, voiding and 24 cancelling the May 16 title transfer, and affirming Plaintiffs’ possession during 25 litigation. (ECF No. 28.)
26 Plaintiffs are still effectively and impermissibly representing the Trust as the 27 owner of the foreclosed property. (ECF No. 36 at 7-8.) Because this argument was brought in a subsequent motion to dismiss, the Court will not consider this 28 argument in this motion. 1 II. Plaintiffs’ Motions Prior the First Amended Complaint 2 Plaintiffs filed several motions prior to their amended complaint: an 3 emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 4 (ECF Nos. 4, 5); emergency motions to void trustee sale, issue temporary 5 restraining order, and enjoin transfer of title or possession (ECF Nos. 7, 10, 11, 6 12); an emergency motion to void trustee sale, for sanctions, and for an expedited 7 hearing (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15); and an emergency motion to void foreclosure sale 8 (ECF No. 23). In all these motions, the Plaintiff in this action was the Trust, which 9 Plaintiffs represented pro se as trustees. As the Court has already noted, a trust 10 cannot be represented by a non-attorney. (See ECF No. 19); Salman v. Newell, 11 885 P.2d 607, 608 (Nev. 1994); Adam E. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:24-CV- 12 00509-CDS-BNW, 2025 WL 404477, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2025). Additionally, 13 Plaintiffs amended complaint now lists Ms. Lewis and Mr. Coleman as Plaintiffs 14 as individuals. For both reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions filed prior 15 to their amended complaint as moot. The Court will therefore consider Plaintiffs’ 16 renewed emergency motion, filed after their amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.) 17 III. Legal Standard 18 A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) a likelihood 19 of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm if preliminary relief 20 is not granted, (3) the balance of equities is in their favor, and (4) an injunction 21 is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 22 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The analysis for a temporary restraining order is “substantially 23 identical” to that of a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co, Inc. v. 24 John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). 25 While Winter requires a plaintiff to show likelihood of irreparable harm, the 26 Ninth Circuit applies a sliding scale approach to the other factors. All. for the Wild 27 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35, 1139 (9th Cir. 2011). If the movant 28 makes a threshold showing of “serious questions going to the merits” instead of 1 likelihood of success on the merits, then strong showings on the remaining 2 factors allow a court to issue the injunction. See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. 3 VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Garcia v. Google Inc., 786 4 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015)). If the movant fails to show serious questions going 5 to the merits, the other factors may not otherwise justify granting the injunction. 6 Id. 7 IV. Analysis 8 Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief fails because they have not shown 9 the minimum requirement of at least serious questions going to the merits of 10 their claim. See id. 11 The allegation underlying all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the first amended 12 complaint is that they tendered a “negotiable instrument” to PNC Bank, which 13 discharged their debt. (ECF No. 27 at 2-3.) Plaintiffs claim that PNC Bank refused 14 to accept this tender, which Plaintiffs argue excuses their own contractual 15 obligations under the mortgage. (Id.) Plaintiffs have not provided with their 16 motion an explanation of what this “negotiable instrument” entails. However, in 17 Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s subsequent motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs 18 attached several documents allegedly sent to PNC Bank which purport to request 19 that PNC Bank use an attached promissory note to discharge the debt on the 20 account. (ECF No. 32 at 18-32.) The “promissory note” referred to appears to be 21 a copy of the loan agreement between Ms.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 PLUYD COLEMAN and SAHAR LEWIS, individually, Case No. 2:25-CV-00791-ART-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS 7 vs. FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
8 PNC BANK, N.A.,
9 Defendant. 10 Plaintiffs Sahar Lewis and Pluyd Coleman bring this action against 11 Defendant PNC Bank, challenging the foreclosure and nonjudicial foreclosure 12 sale of property owned by the Coleman Family Revocable Living Trust (“Trust”).1 13 (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiffs first filed this action in the Eighth Judicial District Court, 14 State of Nevada, and Defendant removed the case to federal court. (ECF No. 1.) 15 Plaintiffs filed several motions for preliminary relief. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16 13, 14, 15.) The Court issued an order finding that the Trust could not proceed 17 in this action represented by a non-lawyer and gave Plaintiffs thirty days to find 18 legal counsel and enter an appearance. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiffs then filed another 19 emergency motion, which appeared to request a court order staying eviction 20 pending the deadline to enter an appearance of counsel. (ECF No. 23.) The Court 21 set a telephonic hearing on that motion, which was continued to due to technical 22 difficulties. (ECF Nos. 25, 26, 34.) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which 23 they assert claims as individuals, and not on behalf of the Trust, as well as a 24 renewed motion for a temporary restraining order.2 (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) The Court 25 1 This action was originally brought by Sahar Lewis and Pluyd Coleman as 26 trustees on behalf of the Trust. (ECF No. 1-3.) In their first amended complaint, 27 Plaintiffs now assert claims on behalf of themselves as individuals. (ECF No. 27.) 2 At oral argument and in their motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that 28 1 held a hearing on June 12, 2025, on Plaintiffs’ emergency motions, which the 2 Court now considers. 3 I. Factual Background 4 Plaintiff Sahar Lewis acquired the subject property located at 3139 5 Belvedere Dr., Henderson, Nevada, in December 2021. (ECF No. 29-1.) That same 6 month, Ms. Lewis acquired a home loan from North American Financial 7 Corporation, secured with a deed of trust. (ECF No. 29-2.) In 2023, Ms. Lewis 8 transferred the property via quitclaim deed to the Coleman Family Revocable 9 Living Trust, of which she and her husband Pluyd Coleman are trustees. (ECF 10 No. 29-5.) In June 2024, the deed of trust was assigned to PNC Bank. (ECF No. 11 29-3.) At oral argument, Ms. Lewis stated that she stopped making monthly 12 mortgage payments sometime before April 2024. In November of 2024, a Notice 13 of Breach and Default on the loan was sent to Ms. Lewis, which was recorded on 14 December 2, 2024. (ECF No. 29-6.) Sometime around March 3, 2025, Ms. Lewis 15 sent what she refers to as a “negotiable instrument” to PNC Bank, which Plaintiffs 16 allege discharged their debt. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) Plaintiffs subsequently brought 17 this lawsuit in state court, and the Defendants removed the case to this Court. 18 (ECF No. 1.) On May 9, 2025, a nonjudicial foreclosure sale occurred and title 19 was transferred on May 16. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) 20 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint brings claims for breach of contract, 21 securities fraud, wrongful foreclosure, and a claim to quiet title. (ECF No. 27.) 22 Plaintiffs’ renewed emergency motion seeks a temporary restraining 23 order/preliminary injunction preventing the transfer of property, voiding and 24 cancelling the May 16 title transfer, and affirming Plaintiffs’ possession during 25 litigation. (ECF No. 28.)
26 Plaintiffs are still effectively and impermissibly representing the Trust as the 27 owner of the foreclosed property. (ECF No. 36 at 7-8.) Because this argument was brought in a subsequent motion to dismiss, the Court will not consider this 28 argument in this motion. 1 II. Plaintiffs’ Motions Prior the First Amended Complaint 2 Plaintiffs filed several motions prior to their amended complaint: an 3 emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 4 (ECF Nos. 4, 5); emergency motions to void trustee sale, issue temporary 5 restraining order, and enjoin transfer of title or possession (ECF Nos. 7, 10, 11, 6 12); an emergency motion to void trustee sale, for sanctions, and for an expedited 7 hearing (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15); and an emergency motion to void foreclosure sale 8 (ECF No. 23). In all these motions, the Plaintiff in this action was the Trust, which 9 Plaintiffs represented pro se as trustees. As the Court has already noted, a trust 10 cannot be represented by a non-attorney. (See ECF No. 19); Salman v. Newell, 11 885 P.2d 607, 608 (Nev. 1994); Adam E. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:24-CV- 12 00509-CDS-BNW, 2025 WL 404477, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2025). Additionally, 13 Plaintiffs amended complaint now lists Ms. Lewis and Mr. Coleman as Plaintiffs 14 as individuals. For both reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions filed prior 15 to their amended complaint as moot. The Court will therefore consider Plaintiffs’ 16 renewed emergency motion, filed after their amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.) 17 III. Legal Standard 18 A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) a likelihood 19 of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm if preliminary relief 20 is not granted, (3) the balance of equities is in their favor, and (4) an injunction 21 is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 22 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The analysis for a temporary restraining order is “substantially 23 identical” to that of a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co, Inc. v. 24 John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). 25 While Winter requires a plaintiff to show likelihood of irreparable harm, the 26 Ninth Circuit applies a sliding scale approach to the other factors. All. for the Wild 27 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35, 1139 (9th Cir. 2011). If the movant 28 makes a threshold showing of “serious questions going to the merits” instead of 1 likelihood of success on the merits, then strong showings on the remaining 2 factors allow a court to issue the injunction. See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. 3 VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Garcia v. Google Inc., 786 4 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015)). If the movant fails to show serious questions going 5 to the merits, the other factors may not otherwise justify granting the injunction. 6 Id. 7 IV. Analysis 8 Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief fails because they have not shown 9 the minimum requirement of at least serious questions going to the merits of 10 their claim. See id. 11 The allegation underlying all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the first amended 12 complaint is that they tendered a “negotiable instrument” to PNC Bank, which 13 discharged their debt. (ECF No. 27 at 2-3.) Plaintiffs claim that PNC Bank refused 14 to accept this tender, which Plaintiffs argue excuses their own contractual 15 obligations under the mortgage. (Id.) Plaintiffs have not provided with their 16 motion an explanation of what this “negotiable instrument” entails. However, in 17 Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s subsequent motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs 18 attached several documents allegedly sent to PNC Bank which purport to request 19 that PNC Bank use an attached promissory note to discharge the debt on the 20 account. (ECF No. 32 at 18-32.) The “promissory note” referred to appears to be 21 a copy of the loan agreement between Ms. Lewis and North American Financial 22 Corporation. (Id. at 20-23.) Ms. Lewis confirmed at the hearing that the last 23 monthly mortgage payment to PNC bank occurred before April 2024, and that 24 due to nonpayment PNC Bank later accelerated the loan and demanded payment 25 on the full balance. Plaintiffs have failed to allege or provide any evidence that 26 they actually tendered payment to PNC Bank for the full balance of their 27 mortgage, discharging their obligations. Because this argument forms the basis 28 of all of Plaintiffs’ claims, they have not shown “serious questions going to the 1 || merits” sufficient to justify preliminary injunctive relief. See VidAngel, 869 F.3d 2 || at 856 (“if a movant fails to meet this threshold inquiry, the court need not 3 || consider the other factors”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4] V. Conclusion 5 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs’ renewed emergency motion (ECF No. 6 || 28) is DENIED. 7 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs’ motions at ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 8 || 13, 14, 15, 23 are DENIED AS MOOT. 9 10 Dated this 17 day of June 2025. 11 12 As ‘ jlostd 1d 13 ANNE R. TRAUM 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28