Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 30, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-06369
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TYRIOUS GATES, Case No. 3:21-cv-06369-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISSOLVING PRELIMINARY 9 v. INJUNCTION

10 SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING, Defendant. 11

12 13 I issued a preliminary injunction to prevent a foreclosure sale of plaintiff Tyrious Gates’s 14 property by defendant Superior Loan Servicing (“Superior”) based on its failure to comply with 15 certain provisions of California’s Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (“HBOR”). See Dkt. No. 30. In 16 response to a motion to dissolve the injunction, I modified it to require the parties to have a 17 meeting that satisfied the relevant HBOR requirements. See Dkt. No. 45. 18 The parties have now filed a joint statement agreeing that the requirements of the statute 19 have been met. See Dkt. No. 47 (“The parties agree that the meeting satisfied the requirements of 20 Civil Code section 2923.55.”); see also Dkt. No. 49 (notice of occurrence of second meeting).1 21 That violation of HBOR was the only basis for the preliminary injunction. See Dkt. No. 30. As I 22 previously stated would occur, see, e.g., id. at 1, now that the statute has been complied with, there 23 is no basis to enjoin the foreclosure sale. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 24 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success 25 1 The notice that a second meeting occurred was filed unilaterally by Superior because, as the 26 email attached to it shows, Gates’s counsel never responded to Superior’s counsel, even after I issued an order requiring a status report due to the parties not filing one on time. See Dkt. No. 49- 27 1 (email); see also Dkt. No. 48 (order). But Gates’s counsel previously agreed to the parties’ joint 1 on, or serious questions going to, the merits); see also In re Turner, 859 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2 || 2017) (holding that the remedy for violation of this HBOR provision is postponing foreclosure 3 sale). 4 Accordingly, the preliminary injunction entered in this case is DISSOLVED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: August 30, 2022

8 liam H. Orrick 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28