Marco Orozco v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-10279
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARCO OROZCO, Case No. 25-cv-10279-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

10 SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 8 et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Marco Orozco filed this action against defendants Shellpoint Mortgage 14 Servicing, NewRez LLC, Quality Loan Service Corporation, and VMC REO, LLC, alleging that 15 they conducted an unlawful foreclosure sale of Mr. Orozco’s home in violation of federal and 16 California law. Mr. Orozco moves this Court ex parte for a temporary restraining order, which the 17 Court converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction. He asks the Court to enjoin defendants 18 from evicting him, transferring title to his home, or recording further instruments pending the final 19 resolution of this action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion for a 20 preliminary injunction.1 21 BACKGROUND 22 Mr. Orozco resides in Hollister, California. He alleges that, in June 2025, Quality Loan 23 Service Corporation sold his home at a trustee’s foreclosure sale. According to Mr. Orozco, he 24 “had a complete loss mitigation application pending with Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing” at the 25 time of the sale “and was actively submitting updated documents that Shellpoint had requested.” 26 Despite this pending application, Shellpoint allegedly “proceed[ed] with foreclosure without 27 1 issuing a written decision, without providing appeal rights, and without properly reviewing [Mr. 2 Orozco’s] application.” Mr. Orozco’s complaint also states that defendants “recorded defective 3 foreclosure documents, including an invalid Notice of Default, an invalid Notice of Trustee’s Sale, 4 and a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale in favor or VMC REO, LLC.” 5 Mr. Orozco filed this action seeking “to void the foreclosure sale, cancel the trustee’s deed, 6 restore title [to him], and obtain damages and injunctive relief.” He asserts claims against 7 defendants under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2605; Truth in 8 Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.; and unspecified “California foreclosure statutes.” 9 Concurrent with his complaint, Mr. Orozco filed an ex parte application for a temporary 10 restraining order that would prevent defendants from “evicting [him], transferring title, or 11 recording further instruments pending resolution” of his claims. The Court converted Mr. 12 Orozco’s application into a motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered defendants to file a 13 response. Defendants have not done so. 14 LEGAL STANDARDS 15 To obtain a preliminary injunction, Mr. Orozco must establish that (1) “that he is likely to 16 succeed on the merits,” (2) “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 17 preliminary relief,” (3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor,” and (4) “that an injunction is 18 in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The first two 19 of these factors “are the most critical,” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir. 2012), and 20 the absence of either requires the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction, see Mazurek v. 21 Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam). 22 DISCUSSION 23 Mr. Orozco moves for a preliminary injunction based on his claims that the foreclosure 24 sale and transfer of title to his home violated RESPA and TILA. The Court need not address the 25 merits of these claims because Mr. Orozco has made no showing that he is likely to suffer 26 irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. See All. for the Wild Rockies v. 27 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] preliminary injunction requires a showing of 1 The Supreme Court has instructed that plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions must 2 demonstrate an actual likelihood of irreparable harm; a mere possibility of harm is not enough. See 3 Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; see also All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 4 2011). Plaintiffs therefore may not rely on speculative or conclusory assertions to make this 5 showing. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 Instead, “[t]hose seeking injunctive relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood 7 of irreparable harm.” Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 8 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added). 9 Mr. Orozco has provided no such evidence. His complaint alleges that he is “facing 10 eviction from [his] home” due to the foreclosure sale, and that an eviction would irreparably 11 “disrupt[]” his “living situation” and “prevent [him] from pursuing quiet title or unwinding the 12 foreclosure sale.” Because Mr. Orozco’s complaint is unverified, however, it “cannot be 13 considered as evidence.” Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 759 (9th Cir. 2006). For the same reason, 14 the Court cannot grant injunctive relief based on the unsworn addendum to his complaint. The 15 only other evidence Mr. Orozco has submitted is an unsigned “Qualified Written Request Under 16 RESPA”—dated June 10, 2025—in which he requested information from Shellpoint concerning 17 the servicing of his loans. This document may show that Shellpoint had an obligation “to provide a 18 timely written response” to Mr. Orozco’s inquiry and that Mr. Orozco may be entitled to recover 19 damages if Shellpoint failed to do so. See Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 704 F.3d 661, 665 (9th 20 Cir. 2012) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(A), (e)(2), (f)). But nothing in the document 21 demonstrates that Mr. Orozco faces imminent eviction or other irreparable harm. 22 Absent any evidence of an “immediate threatened injury,” Mr. Orozco has not satisfied “a 23 prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” Privitera v. Cal. Bd. of Med. Quality Assur., 926 24 F.2d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Caribbean Marine Servs., 844 F.2d at 674). 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Orozco’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. 27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: December 29, 2025 3

P. Casey Mts 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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