Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-06369
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing, Judge Orrick dissolved the injunction after the parties agreed Superior met California foreclosure-law requirements.
Tyrious Gates and Superior Loan Servicing; the injunction preventing a foreclosure sale of Gates’s property was dissolved after the parties agreed that the required statutory meeting had occurred.
What happened
In Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing, the court had earlier barred Superior Loan Servicing from holding a foreclosure sale of Tyrious Gates’s property because Superior had not followed certain requirements of California’s Homeowner’s Bill of Rights.
The court later required the parties to hold a meeting meeting those legal requirements. The parties agreed that the meeting satisfied California Civil Code section 2923.55, and a notice reported that a second meeting had occurred. Because compliance with that law was the only basis for the injunction, the court found no continuing basis to block the foreclosure sale.
Judge William H. Orrick dissolved the preliminary injunction on August 30, 2022.
The detailed version
- Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing · No. 3:21-cv-06369
- William Orrick
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
The court had issued a preliminary injunction preventing defendant Superior Loan Servicing from conducting a foreclosure sale of plaintiff Tyrious Gates’s property. The injunction was based on Superior’s failure to comply with certain provisions of California’s Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (HBOR).
After Superior moved to dissolve the injunction, the court modified it to require the parties to hold a meeting that complied with the relevant HBOR requirements. The parties later filed a joint statement agreeing that the meeting satisfied California Civil Code section 2923.55. A later filing also reported that a second meeting had occurred.
Ruling
The court explained that the HBOR violation was the only basis for the preliminary injunction. Because the parties had agreed that the statutory requirements had been met, the court found no basis to continue enjoining the foreclosure sale. The court therefore dissolved the preliminary injunction.
Effect of the Order
The order removed the preliminary injunction that had prevented the foreclosure sale. It did not state that the foreclosure sale occurred or decide any other issue in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.