Name xxxxx Kentucky Avenue Whittier, California 90604 Phone number Plaintiff in Pro Per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA First and last Name, an individual Plaintiff, vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PURSUANT TO UNIFORM SUPERIOR COURT RULES 6.7, 1 and O.C.G.A 9-1165(b) DATE: TIME: DEPT: TRUSTEE SALE DATE: April 3, 2012

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee for Securitized Trust CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-WF2; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, aka MERS and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION A temporary restraining order is appropriate to maintain the status quo. first and last name (Plaintiff) home will be sold within the next week and Plaintiff is subject to eviction actions, without immediate intervention from this Court and files Verified Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
1 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rules 6.7, 1 and O.C.G.A. 9-11-65(b) against the listed Defendants. A. STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendants lack standing to foreclose on the subject property as they are not the note holders of the home. Plaintiff executed a series of documents, including a Note and Deed of Trust, securing the Property in the amount of note. The Note and the Deed of Trust executed by Plaintiff in favour of the original lender and other Defendants, regarding the Property, was not properly assigned and was transferred to Defendants operating the pooled mortgage funds or trusts in accordance with the Pool and Servicing Agreement of the entities making and receiving the purported assignments to this trust. The note had to be endorsed and assigned, respectively, to the trust and executed by multiple intervening parties before it reached the Trust. Here, neither the Note nor the Deed of Trust was assigned to the Securitized Trust by the closing date. Instead, the mortgage loans were turned into securities, or bonds, and sold to investors by Wall Street and other firms. The purpose was to provide a large supply of money for investments to bond holders which were expected to be relatively safe. Plaintiff have filed a Complaint for Wrongful Foreclosure against Defendants concurrently with this Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order to address the irreparable harm caused by Defendants misconduct, inaction, and misrepresentations. Injunctive relief is appropriate where it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce great or irreparable injury to a party to the action. In Georgia, an imminent foreclosure sale of real property presumptively constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law, thus establishing that portion of the requirement for a temporary restraining order.
2 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

B. THE STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS SATISFIED A motion for interlocutory injunction or a TRO is an extraordinary motion, which is time sensitive, unlike other motions, because it seeks to preserve the status quo until a full hearing can be held to avoid irreparable harm. Focus Entertainment International, Inc., v. Partridge Greene, Inc. (253 Ga. App. 121) (558 SE2d 440)(2001). In Focus Entertainment International, Inc., the court held that foreclosure is one such instance which injunction is appropriate because when an interest in land is threatened with harm, such harm is deemed to be irreparable to the unique character of the property interest, i.e., money damages are not adequate compensation to protect the interest harmed. (See the following:(a) Land, under Georgia law, is deemed sufficiently unique that itis entitled to equitable remedies to protect such interest in land. Rife v. Corbett, 264 Ga. 871 (455 SE2d 581) (1995) (injunction to protect an easement); Benton v. Patel, 257 Ga. 669, 672 (1) (362SE2d 217) (1987) (injunction to stop foreclosure); Black v.American Vending Co., 239 Ga. 632, 634 (2) (238 SE2d 420)(1977) ("the law regards as sufficiently unique that equity will enforce a contract for [land] sale or lease"); Clark v. Cagle, 141 Ga.703, 705-706 (1) (82 SE 21) (1914) (specific performance of contract to sell land). Therefore, when an interest in land is threatened with harm, equitable injunctive relief is appropriate, because such harm is deemed to be irreparable to the unique character of the property interest, i.e., money damages are not adequate compensation to protect the interest harmed. O.C.G.A. 9-11-65(b) Temporary restraining order: when granted without notice;duration; hearing; application to dissolve or modify. A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if: (1) It clearlyappears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verifiedcomplaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damagewill result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorneycan be heard in opposition; and (2) certifies to the court, in writing, the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the noticeand the reasons supporting the party's claim that notice should not be required.

I. PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS AT TRIAL. The foreclosure sale and/or any further transfer of ownership or encumbrance must be
3 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

enjoined because the evidence elicited demonstrates that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits at trial. Plaintiff has successfully alleged nine causes of action against Defendants in this case, including Wrongful Foreclosure and Quiet Title; Fraud in the Inducement, Fraud in the Concealment, Slander of Title, Declaratory Relief and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. At the very basis of Plaintiffs Complaint, based upon the facts outlined herein and above, Plaintiff have alleged and can demonstrate at trial that Defendants breached their contract and through misrepresentation are about to foreclose on Plaintiffs real property

A. Recent Cases Show that the Plaintiff will likely Prevail on the claims. 1. Courts have rejected MERS as a valid beneficiary. Courts across the country have rejected MERS's involvement in the nationwide scheme to defraud borrowers. See, e.g., In Re Hawkins, attached to Motion to Supplement Authority, 2009 WL 901766 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2009). See also In re Jacobson, 2009 WL 567188 (Bankr. W. D. Wash. 2009) at n. 9 (recognizing the identification of MERS "solely as nominee" as the beneficiary on the deed of trust to be problematic, considering that the beneficiary under a deed of trust is defined as the holder of the instrument or document evidencing the obligations secured by the deed of trust under the Revised Code of Washington); Mortgage Registration System, Inc. v. Southwest Homes of Arkansas, 2009 WL 723182 (Ark. 2009) (holding that MERS, listed on the deed of trust as the "Beneficiary" acting "solely as nominee for Lender" and "Lender's successors and assigns," was not conveyed title under the deed of trust.) In that matter, the court found that MERS was not the beneficiary under the deeds, although MERS was so designated in the deeds. Rather, the individual named as trustee on the deeds of trust was the trustee, and the lender, who received the payments on the debt, was the beneficiary. Therefore, the court found
4 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

that MERS held no authority to act as an agent and held no property interest in the mortgaged land subject to the deed. Thus, none of the Defendants, nor anyone associated with them, has the right to foreclose on the Plaintiffs' homes. II. PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INTERIM HARM IF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS DENIED; DEFENDANT WILL NOT SUFFER INTERIM HARM It would be a stretch to find Defendants will suffer irreparable harm if the property is not sold at the trustee sale. Clearly, if Defendants can succeed on the merits, they will obtain the property through a foreclosure sale that Defendants could reset in the future. Additionally, Plaintiff intends to keep the Property after vindicating her rights, and there is no reason why Plaintiff would damage the Property in the interim since it is home to the Plaintiff and a property Plaintiff plan to keep and maintain. The good-faith stewardship of the Property is clearly in Plaintiffs best interest, as well as the Defendants. CONCLUSION Plaintiff request that this Court issue a temporary restraining order to restrain until a hearing on the order to show cause why Defendants and their employees, agents, and persons acting with them on their behalves should not be enjoined from transferring ownership of or further encumbering Plaintiffs Property. DATED: April 1, 2012

_______________________________ By: __Name____________

Plaintiff in Pro Per

5 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

6 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION