Jose O. Mendiola et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al
| Jose O. Mendiola and Martha L. Mendiola |
| Alan Antonio Castillo, Mortgage Electronic Registation Systems, Inc., HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), DOES and Carlos Martinez |
| 2:2009cv05133 |
| July 15, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Matz |
| Mumm |
| Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
17
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by before Judge A. Howard Matz: Court GRANTS in part andDENIES in part Defendants MOTION to Dismiss 6 , and extends the Temporary Restraining Order up to and including 8/31/2009. If Plaintiff posts a $40,000 bond on or before 8/31/2009, the Court will convert the Temporary Restraining Order into a preliminary injunction 10 . (See attachment Minute Order for further information). If Plaintiffs wish to amend their complaint they must do so on or before 9/7/2009. (jp)
|
|
Filing
9
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge A. Howard Matz re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to For an Order Shortening Time for Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction[7 ]: On August 4, 2009 Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and for an Order Shortening Time for Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction.1 The Application states tha t it is based on a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Erica Melendez re: Ex-Parte Notice to Defendants, Declaration of Mr. Mendiola, Declaration ofAdrian Mercado, and the Declaration of Ligia I. Hernandez. The Court has not received any of these documents, and without them has no basis to rule on the merits of the Application. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), Plaintiffs must also present an affidavit from their attorney certifying in writing any efforts made t o give notice of the Application, and the reasons, if any, why notice should not be required. In addition, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to disclose the status of the TRO entered by the California Superior Court, including the expiration date of that TRO. (se)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
