United States District Court, D. Arizona
Adam C. Cytron, Plaintiff,
PHH Mortgage Corp. et. Al, Defendants.
G. Campbell United States District Judge
has filed an emergency motion to restrain Defendants from
evicting Plaintiff and his family from their residence. Doc.
18. Plaintiff has filed other motions as well. Docs. 11, 12,
14. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be denied.
preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff must
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court's Local Rules, and other federal law, even though
he is not represented by an attorney. Plaintiff states in
some of his filings that he is doing his best to comply with
the Court's requirements, which the Court appreciates,
but the Court cannot give him legal advice, nor can it
decline to apply the relevant rules and laws simply because
Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel.
Request for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 18).
obtain preliminary injunctive relief such as a TRO, a
plaintiff must show that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that injunctive relief is in the public interest.
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7
(2008). The test includes a sliding scale. If the plaintiff
shows that the balance of hardships will tip sharply in his
favor, he need not make a strong showing of likelihood of
success on the merits - the existence of serious questions
will suffice. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,
622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th Cir. 2010).
cites these standards, but fails to show how they are
satisfied. Doc. 18. Plaintiff's motion asserts that
Defendants have failed to produce the original promissory
note for his property or to otherwise show that they are
actual holders of the note, but provides no evidence in
support. In addition, Arizona law does not require such a
showing before a note can be enforced through a non-judicial
foreclosure. See Hogan v. Washington Mut. Bank,
N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 783 (Ariz. 2012); Mansour v.
Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., 618 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1181
(D. Ariz. 2009). Plaintiff's motion also makes reference
to various Arizona statutes, fraud, and unfair business
practices, but again provides no explanation as to why he is
likely to prevail on the merits of any of his claims.
motion includes no exhibits or supporting evidence, and no
affidavit. The motion does make reference to his complaint,
but it is not sworn. Doc. 1.
also asks for a TRO without notice, but he has failed to
address the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(b). Nor does he provide the affidavit or verified
complaint required by that rule. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A).
of these reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request
for a TRO.
filed a motion seeking permission to hold a telephone
conference with “USAA” (Doc. 11), but did not
explain the purpose of the call or why the Court's
permission was needed. Plaintiff does not need the
Court's permission to talk with other parties in the
case, in person or by phone. The Court notes that USAA does
not appear to have been served in this case, nor has it made
an appearance. The motion will be denied as moot.
has filed a 74-page motion asking that an accelerated summary
judgment be entered in his favor or that an accelerated
hearing be held. Doc. 12. The motion cites several different
rules, many of them relating to post-trial matters. The
motion itself seems to suggest that Plaintiff gave Defendants
notice of his intent to cancel certain obligations under the
Truth in Lending Act, and that Defendants failed to respond
within 20 days. The motion says that Plaintiff has
communicated with the Consumer Finance Bureau and Congress,
and implies that this makes possible some Court action.
the Defendants appear to have been served in this case.
Plaintiff is required to serve them in accordance with Rule 4
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, within 90 days of
filing his complaint, and to file a notice of service with
the Court once each of them has been served, as required by
Rule 4(1). Defendants must be made parties to this case
through service before the Court can take any action on the
merits. Once Defendants have been served, the Court will hold
a case management conference under Rule 16 and set a schedule
to govern these proceedings. Plaintiff is free to suggest a
schedule he thinks reasonable, and the Court will consider
his suggestion. In the meantime, his request for an expedited
ruling on the merits is denied.
has filed a motion to “add pages back in” to his
complaint, explaining that six pages were omitted when the
complaint was filed. Doc. 14. If Plaintiff wishes to amend
the complaint in the Court's docket, he must do so in
accordance with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rule 15.1. The Court notes that Plaintiff
has the ...