Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2023-01334199, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jennifer Bacani's motion for preliminary injunction against Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr Cooper, U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (FKA U.S. Bank, N.A.), and The Mortgage Law Firm, PLC, is denied.

As a preliminary matter, it has not been shown that the court has personal jurisdiction over two of the defendants.  A proof of substitute service on Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr Cooper, U.S. Bank Trust Company was filed on July 27, 2023.  There is no proof of service on U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (FKA U.S. Bank, N.A.).  The court cannot enjoin defendants over whom it has no jurisdiction. 

Even if the court were to rule on the merits of the motion, it would be denied.  Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (a)(3) provides that an injunction may be granted: “When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.” (See San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 438, 442, and Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 9:528.)

“As its name suggests, a preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim. [Citation.] To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits. [Citation.]” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554, emphasis in original.) Generally, “the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (Ibid.) However, “[a] trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.” (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 999, citation omitted.)

Plaintiff has not shown a probability of prevailing on the merits.  The crux of her case is that Defendants are attempting to collect a debt that was discharged by the bankruptcy court.  No evidence was submitted.  (See Mot. [ROA 8].)  Other than her bare claims, there is nothing before the court evidencing the discharge of this alleged debt, the threatened foreclosure, or the probability of prevailing on the merits. 

Similarly, while Plaintiff asserts irreparable harm, she provides no evidence to show how she will be harmed by continued debt collection efforts, including foreclosure.  Under these circumstances, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown irreparable harm or that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuance of the requested preliminary injunction.  The motion is denied. 

The Clerk shall give notice of the ruling.