Greeson
Greeson v. Quicken Loans Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TAMI GREESON, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04877-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
v. FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
QUICKEN LOANS INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 10 Defendants.
The application for a temporary restraining order is denied. The plaintiffs have not shown any likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), and Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). The plaintiffs’ claims rely on the defendants’ alleged failure to provide periodic statements in violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1026.41. The defendants argue that they were not required to provide periodic statements after the plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy and their bankruptcy was discharged. See 12 C.F.R. § 1026.41(e)(5)(i)(A). There is some confusion regarding the defendants’ obligation to provide periodic statements. In 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stated that periodic statements were not required for mortgage debts discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. See Amendments to the 2013…