Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Truehill

M.D. Louisiana

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Truehill

DecidedApril 1, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00255

StatusUnknown

This text of Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Truehill (Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Truehill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Truehill, (M.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, CIVIL ACTION LLC VERSUS HARRISON TRUEHILL NO. 25-00255-BAJ-RLB RULING AND ORDER Defendant, proceeding pro se, has filed an Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2, the “Motion”). Defendant contends that he is the homeowner and current occupant of residential property in Ascension Parish, _ Louisiana, which is the subject of a foreclosure action filed by Plaintiff in state court. (Doc. 2 at 1). Defendant argues that although his debt has been discharged, Defendant and the Ascension Parish Sheriff intend to proceed with a Sheriffs sale of Defendant’s property on April 2, 2025. Ud. at 2). Defendant further asserts that he filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in state court, but the state court denied his Motion. (/d.). Defendant alleges that the state court’s “refusal to hold a hearing or evaluate the merits of Defendant’s federal defenses constitutes a denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.” (/d.). Thus, Defendant asks the Court to enjoin Plaintiff and the Ascension Parish Sheriff from proceeding with the April 2, 2025 Sheriffs sale. Ud.; see also Doc. 2-1).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65(b)(1) provides: The court may issue a temporary restraining order 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)(A)-(B) (emphasis added). Defendant has failed to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(A) because he has not provided specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint. Defendant’s failure to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)’s verification requirements, standing alone, is a sufficient basis to deny his request for a TRO. See Stevenson v. Benjamin, No. CV 19-00637-BAJ-SDJ, 2021 WL 11592389, at *1 (M.D. La. Feb. 17, 2021) (denying pro se plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order due to failure to comply with Rule 65’s notice requirements); Hampton v. First Guaranty Mortgage Corp., No. 16-cv-632, 2016 WL 5796886, at *1 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2016) (same); Spears v. Scales, No. 15-11-SDD-RLB, 2016 WL 3774069, at □□ (M.D. La. July 18, 2016) (same). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) be and is hereby DENIED.

a a LEE Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this “__ day of April, 2025

JUDGE BRIAN A. oe UNITED STATES DI ICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, CIVIL ACTION LLC VERSUS HARRISON TRUEHILL NO. 25-00255-BAJ-RLB RULING AND ORDER Defendant, proceeding pro se, has filed an Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2, the “Motion”). Defendant contends that he is the homeowner and current occupant of residential property in Ascension Parish, _ Louisiana, which is the subject of a foreclosure action filed by Plaintiff in state court. (Doc. 2 at 1). Defendant argues that although his debt has been discharged, Defendant and the Ascension Parish Sheriff intend to proceed with a Sheriffs sale of Defendant’s property on April 2, 2025. Ud. at 2). Defendant further asserts that he filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in state court, but the state court denied his Motion. (/d.). Defendant alleges that the state court’s “refusal to hold a hearing or evaluate the merits of Defendant’s federal defenses constitutes a denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.” (/d.). Thus, Defendant asks the Court to enjoin Plaintiff and the Ascension Parish Sheriff from proceeding with the April 2, 2025 Sheriffs sale. Ud.; see also Doc. 2-1).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65(b)(1) provides: The court may issue a temporary restraining order 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)(A)-(B) (emphasis added). Defendant has failed to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(A) because he has not provided specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint. Defendant’s failure to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)’s verification requirements, standing alone, is a sufficient basis to deny his request for a TRO. See Stevenson v. Benjamin, No. CV 19-00637-BAJ-SDJ, 2021 WL 11592389, at *1 (M.D. La. Feb. 17, 2021) (denying pro se plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order due to failure to comply with Rule 65’s notice requirements); Hampton v. First Guaranty Mortgage Corp., No. 16-cv-632, 2016 WL 5796886, at *1 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2016) (same); Spears v. Scales, No. 15-11-SDD-RLB, 2016 WL 3774069, at □□ (M.D. La. July 18, 2016) (same). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) be and is hereby DENIED.

a a LEE Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this “__ day of April, 2025

JUDGE BRIAN A. oe UNITED STATES DI ICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Truehill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakeview-loan-servicing-llc-v-truehill-lamd-2025.