Drakeford
Drakeford v. Capital Benefit, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RHONDA DRAKEFORD, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04161-WHO
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARAY
9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER
10 CAPITAL BENEFIT, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 8 Defendants. 11
12 Having considered plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent 13 defendants from proceeding with a non-judicial foreclosure on their residence set for July 2, 2020 14 (Dkt. No. 8) and defendants’ opposition (Dkt. No. 13), as well as the supporting declarations and 15 exhibits, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.1 16 The main, and for purposes of this TRO, only dispute between the parties is whether the 17 loan provided by defendants, secured by plaintiffs’ residence, was made primarily for “business 18 purposes.” If it was, the loan is exempt from the protections provided for consumers under the 19 federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the foreclosure may procced. If it was not made 20 primarily for business purposes, then the loan is arguably subject to rescission under…