The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 LENORA BROWN, Case No. 23-cv-04186-JD
10 Plaintiff,
ORDER RE PRELIMINARY
11 v. INJUNCTION
12 CITI MORTGAGE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
15 The Court entered a temporary restraining order against defendant Dyck O’Neal barring
16 sale or foreclosure of plaintiff Lenora Brown’s residence, because she “raised a serious question
17 on the merits of Dyck O’Neal’s interest in her residence,” and “the balance of hardships tips
18 heavily in her favor.” Dkt. No. 15 (citing Pangea Legal Servs. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
19 512 F. Supp. 3d 966, 972 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). The Court directed Dyck to show cause by
20 December 1, 2023, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. See id. More than 10 days
21 have passed since that deadline, and Dyck has not filed any response or otherwise communicated
22 with the Court.
23 Dyck has not proffered any facts in response to Brown’s showing that she is entitled to
24 injunctive relief for the reasons stated in the TRO. Consequently, Dyck and its agents, assigns,
25 representatives, attorneys, and all others acting in concert with it, are enjoined pending further
26 order from selling, foreclosing, encumbering, or affecting title of Brown’s residence, located at
27 473 Kennwood Dr., Ukiah, CA 95482. Brown is not required to post a bond under Federal Rule
1 harm from maintaining the status quo pending a resolution on the merits. See Jorgensen v.
2 || Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003).
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 Dated: December 15, 2023
5
6
JAMES JPONATO
7 United tates District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
©
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28