Gilbert Doro Gonzales et al. v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A. et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiffs Gilbert Doro Gonzales and Maria Elva Gonzales’s amended ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to prevent foreclosure. The court found inadequate notice, failure to justify ex parte relief, and insufficient allegations establishing federal-question jurisdiction or a likelihood of success on the merits.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs did not satisfy Local Rule 7-19.1 because they did not show that they made reasonable, good-faith oral efforts to advise opposing counsel of the date and substance of the proposed ex parte application or informed the court under oath of those efforts and any opposition.
2. Plaintiffs failed to establish the circumstances required for an ex parte TRO because they did not provide specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury would occur before Defendants could be heard, and they did not show that they were without fault in creating the asserted emergency.
3. Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or establish federal-question jurisdiction because their asserted federal statutory violations were conclusory and lacked specific factual allegations identifying the violated provisions and the elements of each claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs satisfied the notice requirements for an ex parte application under Central District of California Local Rule 7-19.1.
2. Whether Plaintiffs established circumstances justifying issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order without notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(A).
3. Whether Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and a viable basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Disposition

denied