Thomas B Schaults CQV Trust v. LoanDepot Company LLC

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Thomas B Schaults CQV Trust, No. CV-23-00091-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. LoanDepot Company LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 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).

18 The Motion will be denied.

19 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).

2 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 4|| 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.

11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Restraining Order || (Doc. 7) is denied.

14 Dated this 25th day of January, 2023.

16 fe SZ V7 norable' Diang/4. Hurfetewa 18 United States District Fudge _2-