Cardenas Limon et al v. Planet Home Lending, LLC

1 – ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JUAN J. CARDENAS LIMON and
NATASHA GRACE WOOD,
Case No. 3:26-cv-02040-AB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC,
Defendant.
BAGGIO, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Juan J. Cardenas Limon and Natasha Grace Wood bring this case against their
mortgage loan servicer, Defendant Plant Home Lending, LLC. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs
bring claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), the Oregon Trust Deed Act (OTDA), the Oregon Unlawful Trade
Practices Act (OUTPA), the Oregon Mortgage Servicer Act, and for breach of
contract/promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
Case 3:26-cv-02040-AB Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 8

2 – ORDER
invasion of privacy and trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. ¶¶ 45–71.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated its agreement to suspend nonjudicial foreclosure activity
on their home after the parties agreed to a Trial Payment Plan. Id. ¶¶ 1, 15. Plaintiffs now ask
this Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) suspending foreclosure activity on their
loan. Pl.’s Mot. TRO 2, ECF No. 4. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part
Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are “23 months delinquent” on their home loan. Compl. ¶ 15. In August 2026,
the parties entered a three-month “Partial Claim” trial pursuant to the Fair Housing Act’s
Permanent Home Retention Options. Id. ¶¶ 15, 17. Under the terms of the Trial Payment Plan,
Plaintiffs were to pay $2,353.30 on September 1, October 1, and November 1, 2026. Id. ¶ 17;
Cardenas Limon Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 5. The “trial packet” further explained that Plaintiffs had
to accept the Trial Payment Plan by August 25, 2026, and that the “offer is revoked only if . . .
payment is not received by the last day of the month in which it was due.” Compl. ¶ 18;
Cardenas Limon Decl. Ex. A.
Plaintiffs sent a written acceptance of the trial plan on August 13, 2026. Cardenas Limon
Decl. ¶ 4, Exs. A–B. Defendant confirmed Plaintiffs’ acceptance the next day and wrote that
“foreclosure activity on the . . . loan will be suspended.” Id. at Ex. A. Plaintiffs also requested
that Defendant confirm that the foreclosure sale was cancelled or postponed before they made a
payment. Compl. ¶ 24.
When Plaintiffs had not yet provided payment by late September, Defendant wrote
Plaintiffs on September 23, 2026, that a “mitigation hold” was on their account and said that
foreclosure would continue if the September payment was not received. Cardenas Limon Decl.
Case 3:26-cv-02040-AB Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 8

3 – ORDER
Ex. E. But Plaintiffs refuse to pay Defendant while their home is still listed as an auction online.
Compl. ¶ 27; Cardenas Limon Decl. ¶ 2 (“I was not going to wire $2,353.30 into a trial and then
be told the auction was still happening.”). Plaintiffs allege that because foreclosure activity has
not ceased “more than ten people have come to the Property,” taking photos of Plaintiffs’
children in front of the house, asking to see inside of Plaintiffs’ home, and entering their
backyard without permission. Compl. ¶ 35; Suppl. Cardenas Limon Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 6.
STANDARDS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), a TRO may issue without notice to the
opposing party or its attorney only if the movant shows (1) through “specific facts in an affidavit
or a verified complaint” that “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition[,]” and (2) that “the movant’s
attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be
required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before a
preliminary injunction hearing may be held. See W. Watersheds Project v. Bernhardt, 391 F.
Supp. 3d 1002, 1008-09 (D. Or. 2019). The legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary
injunctions are “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240
F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). The standard for a preliminary injunction is a high one: it
“may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the
plaintiff must show that: (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their
favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20.
Case 3:26-cv-02040-AB Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 8

4 – ORDER
Ordinarily, Rule 65(c) permits a court to grant preliminary injunctive relief “only if the
movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages
sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” “Despite the
seemingly mandatory language,” the Ninth Circuit has explained that “Rule 65(c) invests the
district court with discretion as to the amount of security required, if any.” Johnson v. Couturier,
572 F.3d 1067, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
DICSUSSION
As a preliminary matter, the Court finds it appropriate to address the scope of Plaintiff’s
requested TRO. In addition to requesting that the Court stop Defendant and its agents from
proceeding with the sale of their home, Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (1) order nonparty real estate
listing companies—such as Zillow and Auction.com—to remove the house from foreclosure and
auction status; and (2) to order Defendant to mail a Trial Plan Agreement to Plaintiff’s house.
Pl.’s Mot. TRO 2. The Court declines to order the additional relief requested by Plaintiff. The
real estate listing companies are not parties to this action, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated
that they are acting in concert with Defendant. See Rule 65(d)(2). Plaintiffs have also failed to
show they would suffer irreparable harm if they do not receive a hard copy of the Trial Plan
Agreement. Thus, the Court limits the requested relief to the sale of Plaintiffs’ home scheduled
for October 20, 2026.
Turning to Rule 65 and the Winter factors, the Court first finds that Plaintiffs have met
both requirements of Rule 65(b). First, as required by Rule 65(b)(2), Plaintiffs certified in
writing their efforts to give notice to Defendants.1 Pl.’s Mot. TRO 6; see also Return of Service,
1 On October 1, 2026, soon after Plaintiffs filed their Motion, the Court ordered Plaintiffs
to serve Defendant with a scheduling order allowing Defendant an opportunity to appear and
respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion by October 9, 2025. Order, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed proof of
Case 3:26-cv-02040-AB Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 8

5 – ORDER
ECF No. 9. Second, Plaintiffs demonstrate they are likely to suffer significant irreparable harm
from the imminent sale of their home. Judges in this district have concluded that the loss of a
home may result in irreparable harm. See Dawson v. Bank of New York Mellon, 3:16-cv-01427-
HZ, 2016 WL 3892438, at * 1 (D. Or. July 18, 2016) (finding nonjudicial foreclosure would
cause irreparable harm from the loss of the plaintiff’s real property); Gosha v. Bank of New York
Mellon Corp., 3:16-CV-00073-BR, 2016 WL 9211686, at *1 (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2016) (granting a
TRO where it was a close question on the merits but the potential harm to the plaintiffs—who
were senior citizens on a fixed income—was great); Barnett v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P.,
772 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1338 (D. Or. Feb. 23, 2011) (finding the scheduled foreclosure sale would
likely cause irreparable harm). In this case, Plaintiffs and their four minor children reside in the
home. Cardenas Limon Decl. ¶¶ 1–2. Plaintiffs also have limited resources. Id. ¶ 2 (“Money in
this house is tight.”); see also Cardenas Limon Appl. IFP, ECF No. 2; Wood Appl. IFP, ECF No.
3. The loss of this property, therefore, would likely cause substantial, irreparable harm to
Plaintiffs. Because this sale is scheduled for October 20, 2026, this harm may result before
Defendant can be heard on this matter.
Second, there are close questions on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiff cites the
OTDA and the RESPA implementing regulations as the basis for the TRO. Pl.’s Mot. TRO 4
(citing 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g) and Or. Rev. Stat. § (ORS) 86.752). Plaintiffs, however, cannot
obtain injunctive relief under RESPA. See Rivera v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, No. C 10-
02439 RS, 2010 WL 2757041, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2010) (finding the plaintiff’s RESPA
claims could not stop a foreclosure because injunctive relief is not available under RESPA). And
service of the Order on Defendant’s registered agent dated October 2, 2026. See Certificate of
Service, ECF No. 10. Plaintiffs also sent these documents to Defendant by email. Cardenas
Limon Decl., ECF No. 11. Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO.
Case 3:26-cv-02040-AB Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 8

6 – ORDER
while injunctive relief is available to Plaintiffs under the OTDA, see, e.g., Niday v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 353 Or. 648, 650, 302 P.3d 444 (2013) (noting “the underlying case [was] an
action for declaratory and injunctive relief” where the plaintiff alleged that the requirements for
nonjudicial foreclosure under the OTDA had not been satisfied), it is not entirely clear from the
Complaint or supporting documents that Plaintiffs would succeed on this claim. As relevant here,
ORS 86.752 prohibits Defendant from pursing a nonjudicial foreclosure unless Plaintiffs “ha[ve]
not complied with the terms a foreclosure avoidance measure to which [Plaintiffs] have agreed”
and Defendant “has complied with the provisions of ORS 86.748.” ORS 86.752(5)–(6). ORS
86.748, in turn, requires that Defendant give a specific written notice to Plaintiffs that they have
not complied with their foreclosure avoidance measure within ten days after making a
determination that they failed to comply. ORS 86.748(1)(a). Here, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs
complied with the parties’ foreclosure avoidance measure because they failed to make the
September 2026 payment pursuant to the Trial Payment Plan. And assuming Defendant’s
responsibility to provide Plaintiffs with notice under ORS 86.748 had been triggered at the time
that the case was filed, Cardenas Limon Decl. Exs. A, D, it is unclear whether the September 23,
2026 email complied with the statutory notice requirements, see id. ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. E. Nevertheless,
the severity of the harm that Plaintiffs would face with the loss of their home offsets their lesser
showing of this element of the Winter test.
Third, the harm that Plaintiffs face also outweighs any potential harm to Defendant from
postponing the foreclosure sale, particularly in light of Defendant’s prior agreement to cancel the
foreclosure sale in light of the trial payment plan. Cardenas Limon Decl. Ex. A (“Now that you
have provided your written attestation and acceptance of the Trial Payment Plan, foreclosure
activity on the above-referenced loan will be suspended, consistent with 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41.”).
Case 3:26-cv-02040-AB Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 8

7 – ORDER
Fourth, the public interest factor in this case is neutral. “When the reach of an injunction
is narrow, limited only to the parties, and has no impact on non-parties, the public interest will be
at most a neutral factor” in the preliminary injunction analysis. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586
F.3d 1109, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation modified). But, if the impact of the injunction
reaches beyond the parties and potentially impacts the public, the public interest is relevant to the
analysis. Id. Here, this factor is not relevant to the analysis: the TRO is limited to restraining
Defendant from conducting the foreclosure sale and does not involve any nonparties to the
action.
Finally, a TRO may issue only if the movant “gives security in an amount that the court
considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been
wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The Court has discretion as to the
amount of security, if any, that should be required. Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1086
(9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue the TRO without a bond, arguing that Defendant
already holds the deed of trust and that the TRO does not increase any risk to Defendant because
it already agreed to cease foreclosure activities. Pl.’s Mot. TRO 5. But Plaintiffs also agreed to
pay Defendant each month in exchange for its promise to suspend foreclosure activities. The
Court, therefore, finds security in the amount of the proposed September payment under the Trial
Payment Plan is proper in this matter. The Court therefore orders Plaintiffs to pay a security in
the amount of $2,353.30.
///
///
///
///
Case 3:26-cv-02040-AB Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 7 of 8

8 – ORDER
ORDER
Based on the record, including the Complaint [1], Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order [4], and Plaintiffs’ supporting declarations [5][6], Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order [4] is GRANTED IN PART. The Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The nonjudicial sale of the property located at, and commonly known as, 1593 S.
Camille Place, Newberg, Oregon 97132, shall be halted during the period this
Temporary Restraining Order is in place; and
2. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, and all other persons in active concert
or participation with Defendant who receive actual notice of this Order, by personal
service or otherwise, are prohibited from either directly or indirectly taking any
actions to advance or conduct the nonjudicial sale of the property during the period of
time this Temporary Restraining Order is in place.
This Order will expire within 14 days of its issuance. Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’
motion for a preliminary injunction is due October 22, 2026, the same day Defendant’s Answer
is due. Plaintiffs’ optional reply is due Monday, October 26, 2026. A hearing on the
preliminary injunction will be held on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom
14B before Judge Baggio.
Plaintiffs are required to give security in the amount of $2,353.30 in connection with this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ____ day of October, 2026.
_______________________
AMY M. BAGGIO
United States District Judge
14th
Case 3:26-cv-02040-AB Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 8 of 8