Belleci v. Mroczek ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARISA ANN BELLECI, 10 Case No. 21-cv-09630-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 12 FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING RICK MROCZEK, et al., ORDER 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Appearing in pro se, plaintiff Marisa Ann Belleci brings this action alleging a wrongful 17 foreclosure of her residential property. Belleci requests an “emergency hearing” and a temporary 18 restraining order “due to the pending title dispute.” It is not entirely clear what Belleci seeks to 19 enjoin. It appears the foreclosure has already taken place. It may be the Belleci is hoping to 20 prevent an eviction, but she provides no information as to any unlawful detainer action that may 21 be underway or completed, or as to any eviction proceedings that may be pending. 22 A temporary restraining order (TRO) may be granted upon a showing “that immediate and 23 irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 24 in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). A request for a TRO is evaluated by the same factors 25 that generally apply to preliminary injunctions, see Stuhlbarg Int’l. Sales Co. v. John D. Brushy & 26 Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001), and as a form of preliminary injunctive relief, a TRO 27 is an “extraordinary remedy” that is “never granted as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 1 that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 2 || of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 3 public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Alternatively, if the moving party can demonstrate the 4 || requisite likelihood of irreparable harm, and show that an injunction is in the public interest, relief 5 may issue so long as there are serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships 6 || tips sharply in the moving party’s favor. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 7 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for 8 || preliminary injunctions remains viable after Winter). 9 Here, Belleci’s complaint invokes a hodgepodge of frivolous theories that have repeatedly 10 || been found meritless in cases alleging wrongful foreclosure. Were this a motion to dismiss, 11 Belleci might be given leave to amend in light of her pro se status, but as matters stand now, it 12 || does not appear Belleci has stated any viable claim. 13 Accordingly, even if Belleci had made an adequate showing as to what “immediate and 14 || irreparable injury, loss, or damage,” is threatened, and that all other factors supporting issuance of 15 a TRO were satisfied, her failure to show any likelihood of success on the merits precludes 16 || granting her application. Finally, although Belleci’s application makes passing reference to a 3 17 permanent injunction, she has not requested a preliminary injunction, and no grounds to set a 18 || hearing to consider one appear. The application is denied. 19 20 || ITISSO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: December 14, 2021 23 RICHARD SEEBORG 24 Chief United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 CASE No. 21-cv-09630-RS