Feedback

Ps Brewer V Loancare Llc

1                                                                        
2                                                                        
3                                                                        
4                                                                        
5                                                                        
6                                                                        
7                                                                        
8                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                       
9                 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                 
10                                                                        
11   REGINA BREWER,                  Case No. 2:25-cv-01157-DC-CSK        
12                Plaintiff,         ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND     
                                    EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY      
13        v.                         RESTRAINING ORDER                    
14   LOANCARE, LLC, et al.           (ECF No. 10)                         
15                Defendants.                                             
16                                                                        
17       Plaintiff Regina Brewer, who is proceeding pro se, filed a second ex parte Motion 
18  for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”).1 Pl. TRO No. 2 (ECF No. 10.) Defendants 
19  Loancare, LLC and Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC have filed an opposition. (ECF No. 
20  12.) Pursuant to Local Rules 230(g) and 231(c), the motion is submitted upon the record 
21  and the briefs. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ second ex parte 
22  TRO motion without prejudice as moot.                                 
23       Plaintiff initiated this action in Sacramento County Superior Court against 
24  Defendants alleging a single breach of contract claim. See Compl. (ECF No. 1.) On April 
25  21, 2025, Defendants removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity 

26                                                                        
   1   This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 
27  Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). This matter was also referred to the undersigned by 
   the district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(a). (ECF No. 
28  11.)                                                                  
1  jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) On April 28, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that is 
2  currently pending before the undersigned. (ECF Nos. 4, 9.) On May 12, 2025, Plaintiff 
3  filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from 
4  proceeding with the foreclosure of her home at 9912 Macabee Lane, Elk Grove, 
5  California 95757 (“subject property”). (ECF No. 7.) This motion was denied as deficient 
6  for failure to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 and Local 
7  Rule 231 governing applications for temporary restraining orders and for failure to 
8  establish a likelihood of success on the merits as required to obtain injunctive relief 
9  under Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 5/14/2025 Order at 
10  4-5 (ECF No. 8). On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second TRO motion, again, seeking to 
11  stop the foreclosure sale. Pl. TRO No. 2 at 2-3. Defendants’ opposition states “the 
12  trustee conducted and completed a foreclosure sale of the subject property” on June 10, 
13  2025, and argues the second TRO is therefore moot. Defs. Opp’n at 1-2 (ECF No. 12).  
14       The Court agrees the foreclosure sale of the subject property moots Plaintiff’s 
15  second TRO. The Court further notes deficiencies in the second TRO, similar to the first 
16  TRO, that would have warranted denial of the motion. First, the second TRO fails to 
17  address the deficiencies identified in the May 14, 2025 Order. Compare Pl. TRO No. 2, 
18  with 5/14/2025 Order. Second, Plaintiff did not provide a timeframe or a date that the 
19  foreclosure sale was set to take place and therefore did not establish an immediate and 
20  irreparable injury that will result. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Finally, the second 
21  TRO is not signed by Plaintiff, which is improper. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) 
22  requires that if a party is not represented by an attorney, "[e]very pleading, written 
23  motion, and other paper must be signed" by the party personally. In addition, the "paper 
24  must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number." Fed. R. Civ. P. 
25  11(a); see also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(b) (“A party appearing in propria persona shall 
26  keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address.”). Plaintiff 
27  is instructed that while she remains unrepresented, she must personally sign every 
28  pleading, motion, and other paper she submits to the Court and she must include her 
1    address, e-mail address, and telephone number on every pleading, motion, and other 
2 || paper she submits to the Court. 
3          Based upon the above, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ second ex parte Motion 
4 |  for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice as moot. 
5 
6  |  Dated:  July 21, 2025                           C iy  S      \U 
                                                CHI SOO KIM 
8                                               UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
9  |  4irew1157.25.tro2 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28