United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. MAJZOUB U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 
J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. #5],
Plaintiff Akib Abiola asks the Court to enjoin the December
19, 2017 sheriff's sale of his home, located at
7548 Promontory Pointe in West Bloomfield, Michigan. The
Court spoke with the parties during a status conference on
December 14, 2017. For the reasons discussed during the
conference and as explained below, Plaintiff's Ex Parte
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order  is
in 2001, Plaintiff and his ex-wife, Gerritha, sought to
obtain a loan. Due to Plaintiff's debt and problematic
financial history, Plaintiff and Gerritha could not qualify
for the loan if Plaintiff served as the Borrower.
September 11, 2001, Gerritha obtained a $480, 000 stated
income loan from North American Mortgage Company
(“NMAC”). Gerritha executed a Promissory Note
evidencing the debt. Both Plaintiff and Gerritha signed the
Note. The Note was secured by a mortgage.
approved Gerritha's loan by using the joint financial
information of Plaintiff and Gerritha. At the time NMAC
evaluated the loan request, Gerritha was a stay-at-home
mother, so Plaintiff generated all of their household income.
sold the loan to Washington Mutual. Plaintiff and Gerritha
entered into a loan modification with Washington Mutual
before it shut down in September 2008. Shortly thereafter,
Chase purchased all of Washington Mutual's assets,
including Plaintiff's loan and/or servicing rights.
and Gerritha divorced in February 2008. In the divorce and
property settlement agreement, Gerritha relinquished her
right, title, and interest in the West Bloomfield home.
the status conference, Defense counsel stated that in March
2017, Plaintiff contacted Chase for a second loan
modification, but ultimately asked to close his application.
It is the Court's understanding that Plaintiff has not
made any payment since 2009. Plaintiff's current
outstanding balance is $452, 331.13. According to Defense
counsel, Plaintiff would need to pay more than $500, 000 to
settle the balance in full and stop the sheriff's sale.
Furthermore, on November 16, 2017, the Honorable Judge Cheryl
Matthews, of the Oakland County Circuit Court, denied
Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order on
the ground that he failed to show that he would suffer
Court has discretion in deciding a motion for temporary
restraining order. See Ohio Republican Party v.
Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2008). Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 65 allows the Court to issue a temporary
restraining order without notice to the adverse party if 1)
the moving party establishes specific facts clearly showing
that an immediate and irreparable injury will result to the
moving party before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition to the motion; and 2) counsel for the moving party
certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the
reasons why notice should not be required. Fed.R.Civ.P.
65(b)(1)(A), (B). Also relevant to the Court's decision
are the following four factors:
(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on
the merits; (2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer
irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of [injunctive
relief] would cause substantial harm to others; and (4)
whether public interest would be served by issuance of a
Summit County Democratic Central and Executive Committee
v. Blackwell, 388 F.3d 547, 550 (6th ...