1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHELLE GOLD, individually and as Case No.: 23cv1342-JES (BLM) Trustee of The Michelle Gold Separate 11 Property Trust Dated December 23, 2002 ORDER: 12 aka The Gold Family Trust; STAR MARTINEZ, Trustee; GONZALEZ- (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 GOLD, individually and on behalf of MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 14 herself and on behalf of all others RESTRAINING ORDER; and similarly situated; and 15 DOES 1-5000, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX 16 PARTE MOTION Plaintiffs,

17 v. [ECF Nos. 2, 5] 18 US BANCORP et al., 19 Defendants. 20

21 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). 22 ECF No. 2. Plaintiffs also filed a related ex-parte motion regarding the request for the 23 TRO. ECF No. 5. After due consideration and for the reasons discussed below, the Court 24 DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. The Complaint 3 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 21, 2023. ECF No. 1. The complaint, styled as a 4 purported class action, is titled “RICO Complaint” and demands “RESCISSION; 5 INJUNCTION; DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE 6 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

- 7 1968 et. seq; FALSE CLAIMS ACT

et seq.”

8 The complaint is disjointed and difficult to decipher. Plaintiffs start with stating 9 that they seek an emergency injunction staying a writ of eviction that was scheduled for 10 July 21, 2023 at 6:00 a.m.1

. Plaintiffs allege that the eviction was based on forged 11 and fraudulent documents, that the foreclosure was illegal, and that they are the rightful 12 owners of the property.

. Plaintiffs further allege that they will suffer 13 irreparable harm because the 3 day notice received was not sufficient.

. Plaintiffs 14 fail to identify the property that they are being evicted from in the complaint itself, but 15 the motion for a TRO appears to identify the property as located at 3342 Randy Ln, 16 Chula Vista, CA 91910. ECF No. 2 at 5. 17 In the remainder of this complaint, however, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]his case 18 began with [] purchase of a home in Florida” that was financed with a mortgage and 19 subsequently foreclosed upon. ECF No. 1 ¶ 57. Then elsewhere Plaintiffs allege that there 20 are three properties at issue, though she does not identify what those properties are or 21 whether one is the Randy Lane property. See

. Regardless, Plaintiffs allege that 22 during the course of their investigation into the foreclosure of the Florida property, they 23 discovered that Defendants engaged in fraudulent practices that also occurred in 24 numerous other cases.

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants created 25 mortgage-backed securities that lacked lawful assignments to mortgages to support them, 26 27 28 1 Even though the eviction was alleged to take place on July 21, 2023, the complaint was dated July 21, 1 and created fraudulent assignments and notes to use in subsequent foreclosures.

¶¶ 2 63-111. 3 Plaintiffs allege that the loan on Plaintiff Gold’s property was “procured by fraud” 4 by Defendants.2

. Plaintiffs further allege that the loan and mortgage was never 5 registered with MERS and therefore, all subsequent assignments and transfers endorsed 6 by Defendants are void and must be rescinded.

. 7 The complaint also includes class allegations related to a class that Plaintiffs 8 propose as “homeowners with mortgages held in any of the MBS trusts listed in Exhibit 9 ‘A.’” ECF No. 1. The complaint, as filed, however does not include an Exhibit A. See 10 generally

Regardless, the complaint includes allegations that Defendants did not 11 comply with various requirements as to these trusts and again used fraudulent documents 12 with regards to these trusts.

. 13 The complaint names over 100 individual Defendants. See ECF No. 1. The 14 allegations in the Complaint generally group all Defendants together, not attributing any 15 specific causes of action to any specific defendant. Plaintiffs allege widespread doctoring 16 of mortgage documents, fraudulent behavior, and a conspiracy between Defendants to 17 deprive homeowners of mortgage assistance, to Defendants’ benefit and benefit of third 18 parties.

. 19 B. The Pending Motions 20 Concurrent with the filing of the complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a TRO. 21 ECF No. 2. The motion, like the complaint, is difficult to decipher, but Plaintiffs appear 22 to be asking for: (1) an emergency request for an injunction to set aside the eviction and 23 foreclosure; and (2) to consolidate the related state court case, case no. 37-2022- 24 00042825-CL-UD-CTL. Plaintiffs subsequently filed another ex parte motion. ECF No. 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiffs again do not specify what property this allegation refers to, whether it is the property in 1 5. This motion does not appear to seek additional relief from the Court, but instead 2 purports to offer further argument to support the motion for a TRO.

3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. Temporary Restraining Order 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) governs the issuance of a TRO. The 6 standard for a TRO is identical to the standard for a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg 7 Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.,

, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). To obtain 8 either a TRO or a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of 9 success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the 10 absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving 11 party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 12 Inc.,

(2008). Generally, a TRO is considered “an extraordinary remedy 13 that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such 14 relief.” Winter,

. The moving party has the burden of persuasion. Hill v. 15 McDonough,

(2006). 16 Plaintiffs filed the motion for a TRO on July 21, 2023 at 5:52 p.m. See ECF No. 2. 17 At this time, the eviction had already taken place. Id. at 2. Plaintiff Gold appears to ask the 18 Court to set aside or stay the eviction, arguing that she and her daughter were denied an 19 opportunity to pack their belongings before the eviction and essentially that they do not 20 have a place to go. Id. at 4-5. 21 While the Court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiffs’ situation, Plaintiffs have failed 22 to meet the legal requirements to obtain a TRO. Other than arguably irreparable harm, 23 they do not address any of the elements for which it is their burden to address to obtain a 24 TRO. Plaintiff does not address likelihood of success on the merits, and upon 25 independent review of the complaint, it is not clear how the allegations there relate to the 26 Randy Lane property or even what the causes of action are and what facts support them. 27 As to balance of equities and public interest, Plaintiffs do not explain why this Court 28 should set aside, on an emergency ex parte basis, an eviction that has been ordered by 1 another court, in proceedings that have were initiated last year. Even though Plaintiffs 2 now argue that they did not have sufficient time to prepare for the eviction, their own 3 complaint states that they were given 3 days of notice—Plaintiffs do not explain how this 4 was not sufficient time to pack their essential belongings to avoid the harm they claim 5 they suffer. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 3. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to obtain a TRO and so the 7 Court DENIES the request for a TRO. 8 B. CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED STATE COURT CASE NO. 37- 2022-00042825-CL-UD-CTL 9

10 In the motion, Plaintiffs also request that their state case, case no. 37-2022- 11 00042825-CL-UD-CTL, be consolidated with the instant case. ECF No. 2 at 7-13. This is 12 not the first time Plaintiffs have made this request. This Court had a previous related case 13 between Plaintiff Michelle Gold, as trustee of the same trust, against several of the same 14 Defendants, involving the same property at Randy Lane and the same underlying state 15 action.3 Gold v. National Default Servicing Corporation et al., Case No. 22-cv-1232-JLS 16 (AGS). Plaintiff Gold made the same request in that case, and the Court denied the 17 request. Gold, Case No. 22-cv-1232, ECF Nos. 23, 30. The Court there noted that the 18 request is procedurally improper because the proper way to place a state law action into 19 federal court is to remove the case under the appropriate federal statutes and that the 20 Court had no authority to remove a case on behalf of a party. Gold, Case No. 22-cv-1232, 21 ECF No. 30 at 7-8. 22 The same reasons preclude the relief Plaintiffs request again. Furthermore, all the 23 authorities that Plaintiffs rely upon relate to when federal cases already in federal court 24 can be consolidated. For example, Plaintiffs cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), 25 but that statute “cannot be used by a federal court to consolidate an action pending before 26 it with a state court action.” Norman v. Celgene Corp., No. CV077174GAFMANX, 2008 27

28 1 || WL 11339102, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2008); Oregon Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 2 || F.2d 382, 383 (9th Cir. 1972) (Rule 42 “applies to cases that are properly before the same 3 || court. Because this [state court] case is not properly before the district court in 4 || Washington, Rule 42 cannot be invoked.”’). 5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request for consolidation of state court case 6 37-2022-00042825-CL-UD-CTL with this action. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and 9 || related ex parte motion. ECF Nos. 2, 5. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Il || Dated: July 26, 2023 12 Sow Str J. Honorable James E. Simmons. Jr. 14 Unites States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28