Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Ex Parte Denial of TRO and to Void Unlawful Detainer Sale.
On May 22, 2020 the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for an order staying foreclosure proceedings. On August 14, 2020 the court denied plaintiffs’ ex parte application for TRO to stay foreclosure. On August 19, 2020 the court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay foreclosure. On August 27, 2020 the court denied plaintiffs’ ex parte application to reconsider the court’s denial of the motion to stay foreclosure. The court in denying reconsideration found that not only was there no emergency justifying ex parte relief, there is no new evidence presented. On September 10, 2020 plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the court’s August 19 2020 denial of the motion for TRO. Plaintiffs request that the court order that the nonjudicial foreclosure sale on August 18 2020 was void; that plaintiffs be allowed to remain in the residence; and that they be awarded monetary damages against defendant Fay Se
Hearing Date
October 30, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Ex Parte Denial of TRO and to Void Unlawful Detainer Sale.
On May 22, 2020 the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for an order staying foreclosure proceedings. On August 14, 2020 the court denied plaintiffs’ ex parte application for TRO to stay foreclosure. On August 19, 2020 the court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay foreclosure. On August 27, 2020 the court denied plaintiffs’ ex parte application to reconsider the court’s denial of the motion to stay foreclosure. The court in denying reconsideration found that not only was there no emergency justifying ex parte relief, there is no new evidence presented. On September 10, 2020 plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the court’s August 19 2020 denial of the motion for TRO. Plaintiffs request that the court order that the nonjudicial foreclosure sale on August 18 2020 was void; that plaintiffs be allowed to remain in the residence; and that they be awarded monetary damages against defendant Fay Se