Thomas B Schaults CQV Trust v. LoanDepot Company LLC

Opinion

WO

Thomas B Schaults CQV Trust, No. CV-23-00091-PHX-DJH

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

LoanDepot Company LLC, et al.,

Defendants. Pending before the Court is pro se Thomas B Schaults CQV Trust’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Motion for Restraining Order (“TRO”) (Doc. 7). Therein, Plaintiff requests the Court to issue a TRO before February 4, 2023, to “prevent irreparable harm.” (Id. at 3). The Motion will be denied. On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Petition for Emergency Restraining or Injunction to Terminate Unlawful Foreclosure Sale—Enforcement of Federal Arbitration Act Arbitration Award, which the Court construed as a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 1). On January 20, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to satisfy the federal pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). (Doc. 6 at 2). This was because Plaintiff’s Complaint did “not specify the relief requested nor [] provide sufficient information from which the Court [could] determine its subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id.) The Court also denied Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO because Plaintiff failed to discuss the relevant standards governing temporary restraining orders, namely the Winter elements. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and thus there is no operative complaint in this matter. As a result, neither the Court nor the defendants are on notice of which claims Plaintiff is seeking emergency relief on. Plaintiff has also failed to explain the reason ex parte relief is required. Indeed, the foreclosure is not until February 4, 2023, and Plaintiff has not described what, if any, harm he would suffer by putting the defendants on notice of this lawsuit. Last, injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy,” and Plaintiff bears a high burden to prove injunctive relief is warranted. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Plaintiff has not even attempted to discuss or meet this burden here, and the Motion is therefore denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Restraining Order (Doc. 7) is denied. Dated this 25th day of January, 2023. fe SZ V7 norable' Diang/4. Hurfetewa United States District Fudge

_2-