Brown v. Citi Mortgage, inc.
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-04186
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Brown v. Citi Mortgage, Judge Donato issued a preliminary injunction barring Dyck O’Neal from selling or foreclosing on Brown’s residence.
Lenora Brown is protected from a sale or foreclosure of her residence by Dyck O’Neal and those acting with it. Dyck O’Neal and those covered by the order may not sell, foreclose on, encumber, or affect title to the residence pending further order.
What happened
In Brown v. Citi Mortgage, the court had temporarily barred Dyck O’Neal from selling or foreclosing on Lenora Brown’s residence because Brown had raised a serious question about Dyck’s interest in the property and the hardships favored her.
The court said Dyck did not respond by the deadline or provide facts challenging Brown’s request. It therefore barred Dyck and those acting with it from selling, foreclosing, encumbering, or affecting the title to Brown’s residence until further order. Brown did not have to post a bond.
The order was signed by Judge James Donato on December 15, 2023.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Citi Mortgage, inc. · No. 3:23-cv-04186
- James Donato
- Dec. 15, 2023
Background
The court had previously entered a temporary restraining order against defendant Dyck O’Neal. That order barred a sale or foreclosure of plaintiff Lenora Brown’s residence because Brown had raised a serious question about Dyck O’Neal’s interest in the residence and the balance of hardships favored Brown. The court directed Dyck to explain by December 1, 2023, why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
More than 10 days passed after the deadline, and Dyck did not file a response or otherwise communicate with the court.
Ruling
The court stated that Dyck had not provided facts responding to Brown’s showing that she was entitled to injunctive relief for the reasons given in the temporary restraining order. The court therefore issued a preliminary injunction pending further order. Dyck, along with its agents, assigns, representatives, attorneys, and others acting in concert with it, may not sell, foreclose on, encumber, or affect title to Brown’s residence at 473 Kennwood Dr., Ukiah, California.
The court also ruled that Brown was not required to post a bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.