Estrada v. Real Time Resolutions Inc.

Background

Byron Estrada, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier order denying his request for a temporary restraining order. He had sought an order preventing Real Time Resolutions Inc. and the other defendants from foreclosing on his property, accruing additional interest on the disputed debt, and engaging in further collection activities.

The court had denied the temporary restraining order after Estrada did not appear at the May 19, 2025 hearing. The court later reviewed Estrada’s reply and confirmed that there was no basis for issuing the order. The earlier denial was without prejudice to Estrada filing a properly noticed motion for a preliminary injunction.

Arguments and analysis

Estrada argued that he was likely to succeed because Real Time had allegedly been sued several times over whether it owned the mortgage notes. He also argued that he was suffering irreparable harm because of his emotional and financial situation.

The court applied standards requiring a valid basis for reconsidering an interlocutory order, such as newly discovered evidence, clear error, a change in controlling law, new material facts, or the court’s failure to consider important facts or legal arguments. The court found no change in law or facts supporting reconsideration. It also stated that Estrada’s theory that Real Time lacked ownership of the mortgage notes had frequently been rejected by other courts in the Northern District of California and that Estrada had not explained why his alleged emotional and financial harm was irreparable.

Estrada also argued that he had not been served with the defendants’ opposition or the hearing notice. The court found that the docket showed the hearing notice had been mailed to his address of record. The court further noted that no argument was made by the defendants at the hearing because Estrada did not appear, and that the court had considered his exhibits and reply brief.

The court clarified that Estrada had requested a temporary restraining order, not a preliminary injunction, and that only the temporary restraining order had been denied. The court stated that Estrada could file a noticed motion for a preliminary injunction.

Disposition

Judge Beth Freeman ordered that Estrada’s motion for reconsideration was denied. This order addressed reconsideration of the earlier temporary-restraining-order ruling and did not grant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.