Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2021

Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:21-cv-06369
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing, Judge Orrick granted a temporary restraining order blocking the property’s foreclosure sale.

Who this affects

Tyrious Gates, Superior Loan Servicing, and the officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and other persons acting in concert with the defendant were affected; the order temporarily barred a sale, transfer, or other disposition of the specified East Palo Alto property.

What happened

In Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing, Tyrious Gates asked the court to stop a possible foreclosure sale of property in East Palo Alto, California. The court’s record did not include a response from Superior Loan Servicing because of the timing of service.

The court found serious questions about whether the foreclosure violated the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or California law. It also found that an immediate sale could cause lasting harm and that briefly delaying the sale would impose little burden on the defendant.

Judge William Orrick granted the temporary restraining order, without requiring Gates to post a bond. The order temporarily barred Superior Loan Servicing and specified related persons from selling, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the property, and set deadlines for proceedings on a preliminary injunction.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing · No. 3:21-cv-06369
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Sept. 8, 2021

Background

Tyrious Gates applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO), an emergency order that temporarily prevents specified conduct while the court considers further relief. He argued that the foreclosure of property located at 1221 Westminster Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303, violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and/or California state law.

The court stated that the record did not include a response from Superior Loan Servicing because of the timing of Gates’s service of the order setting the hearing.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the standard for a preliminary injunction, which it stated is the same as the standard for a TRO. The court found that Gates had shown “serious questions going to the merits” of his claim that the property was foreclosed on unlawfully. It also found irreparable injury because a foreclosure sale could result in the permanent loss of the property or impose additional burdens on Gates to reclaim it.

The court concluded that the burden on Superior Loan Servicing would be minimal because the TRO would only delay the sale while the parties briefed and the court decided a motion for a preliminary injunction. It also found that the public interest favored preventing an unlawful foreclosure. Because no concrete harm from a short delay had been identified, the court did not require a bond.

Order and Procedure

The court granted the TRO. It became effective immediately and would dissolve when the court ruled on a motion for a preliminary injunction, or if Gates failed to file that motion. The order temporarily restrained Superior Loan Servicing, along with its officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and others acting in concert with them, from any sale, disposition, or transfer of the property, including a foreclosure sale.

Gates was ordered to serve Superior Loan Servicing immediately. He had to file a preliminary-injunction motion by September 15, 2021; otherwise, the TRO would terminate on September 16, 2021, at noon. The order set deadlines for the defendant’s response and Gates’s reply and scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing for September 29, 2021. Judge William Orrick issued the order on September 8, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.