1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BETHANY LIOU, Case No. 25-cv-06184-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 9 v. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 STONECREST FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Docket Nos. 6, 16, 17. 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 15 Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause is 16 DENIED for failure to establish irreparable harm. Where Do We Go Berkeley v. Cal. DOT, 32

, 859 (9th Cir. 2022) (For temporary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that “they 18 are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief,” among other factors); see Winter v. 19 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008). 20 Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from moving forward with foreclosure sales of a 21 property in Atherton, California and parcels of land in Tulare County, California. Plaintiff’s 22 Memorandum In Support of Ex Parte Application for TRO at 6 (Dkt. 6-2). However, the 23 foreclosure sales for the properties at issue have already occurred. Deed Upon Sale for Parcels at 24 Ex. 8 (Dkt. 15-2 at 104-09) and Deed Upon Sale for Atherton Property at Ex. 9 (Id. at 111-12). 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff no longer owns the properties and there is nothing left to enjoin. Further, 26 Plaintiff has released all claims related to the properties and the foreclosure sales. See 27 Forbearance Agreements at Exs. 4-6 (Id. at 71-99); Stipulation for Judgment at Ex. 11 (Id. at 119- 1 Thus, Plaintiff's motion for a TRO is DENIED and her motions for judicial approval to 2 || record lis pendens are DENIED as MOOT. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 4, 2025 6 EDWARD M. CHEN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28