POOLE v. NEW REZ LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
VALERIE M. POOLE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:24-cv-00092-LEW
)
NEW REZ LLC, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
In this action, pro se Plaintiff Valerie Poole sues her mortgage lender and a
collection of other entities that she alleges have left their fingerprints on the imperfect
process of securitization of her promissory note into the NRZ Advance Receivables Trust
2015 ON1. She seeks declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief that would clear her real
estate property title, invalidate the note and mortgage she executed to secure the funds
needed to purchase her home in Lewiston, and evidently set aside a foreclosure judgment
rendered in the State of Maine District Court. Plaintiff also asserts statutory and tort claims
for money damages based on alleged misrepresentations or nondisclosures during the
lending process. See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff has also filed certain supplemental
claims (ECF No. 24).
Plaintiff filed this action on March 25, 2024. To date, she has not served several of
the Defendants, which failure is the subject of a recent order to show cause. See July 16,
2024 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 22) (observing that service of process remains to be
Case 2:24-cv-00092-SDN Document 31 Filed 07/26/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
accomplished on defendants HLSS Holding, LLC, DITECH Financial LLC, Wilmington
Trust National Association, Credit Suisse AG and US Bank National Association).
The matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant New Rez LLC “should
be prohibited/restrained from demanding any money/monthly rent payments [or] evicting
[her] from the Real Property.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff further asserts that her Motion is supported
by “the preponderance of evidence included within the complaint.” Id. at 2. It appears that
Plaintiff’s rights in the property have been foreclosed, as she avers that the Lewiston
District Court ruled against her in a 2022 real estate matter, which ruling antedated recent
communications by New Rez about rent payments in lieu of eviction. Id. at 2, ¶ 3. Plaintiff
has also filed records that suggest that the Department of Housing and Urban Development
may purchase her property from the foreclosing mortgagee and that she may be permitted
to continue occupying the home on a temporary basis if she agrees to sign a lease and
qualifies under the Department’s occupied conveyance program. 	See Joinder of Claims
Attachments (ECF No. 24-1).
Preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary in nature and is never awarded as of
right, particularly when it is granted without giving the opposing party an opportunity to
be heard. Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32
(1st Cir. 2011); Baber v. Dunlap, 349 F. Supp. 3d 68, 74 (D. Me. 2018). 	Preliminary
injunctive relief is appropriate if the record before the Court demonstrates (A) that the
plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of a claim for which injunctive relief is available;
(B) that the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent interim relief; (C) that the
Case 2:24-cv-00092-SDN Document 31 Filed 07/26/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
balance of equities between or among the parties tips in the plaintiff’s favor; and (D) that
providing the requested relief will not harm the public interest. Arborjet, Inc. v. Rainbow
Treecare Sci. Advancements, Inc., 794 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir. 2015). As the party seeking
injunctive relief the plaintiff necessarily bears the burden of establishing that the factors
favor the award of extraordinary temporary or preliminary injunctive relief. Nat’l Org. for
Marriage v. Daluz, 654 F.3d 115, 117, 119–20 (1st Cir. 2011). The plaintiff’s likelihood
of success on the merits is the “main bearing wall” of the analysis, meaning that injunctive
relief is appropriately withheld if this showing falls short. W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins.
Co.-Puerto Rico, 748 F.3d 377, 383 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc.
v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1996)).
As for the likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiff’s imperfect securitization
and other theories of relief appear to afford an unlikely means of avoiding the consequences
of a default, especially a default that has resulted in a judgment of foreclosure. 	Plaintiff
confusingly asserts that she was not actually loaned any money to purchase the property in
question but instead deposited her own money into a financial institution. This proposition
is doubtful. 	In any event, Plaintiff has not given the Court cause to conclude that she is
likely to prevail in this Court on an attempt to unwind foreclosure proceedings in the Maine
District Court, a venue where, presumably, she was able to challenge whether the
foreclosing party was in proper possession of her note and mortgage and whose judgment
is better challenged by means of an appeal than by an action in this Court.
Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success on a claim that
would result in a permanent injunction and declaratory relief vesting her with clear title to
Case 2:24-cv-00092-SDN Document 31 Filed 07/26/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the property, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED (ECF No.
23).
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of July, 2024.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00092-SDN Document 31 Filed 07/26/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>