Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. City of Richmond, No. CV-13-3663-CRB (Aug. 8, 2013)

Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. City of Richmond, No. CV-13-3663-CRB (Aug. 8, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,093|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. City of Richmond, No. CV-13-3663-CRB (Aug. 8, 2013)
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. City of Richmond, No. CV-13-3663-CRB (Aug. 8, 2013)

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Aug 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB
 
ROCKY C. TSAI (SBN 221452)(rocky.tsai@ropesgray.com)
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4006Telephone: (415) 315-6300Facsimile: (415) 315-6350Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee,
et al.
 
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTEDON SIGNATURE PAGE
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee,
et al.
 Plaintiffs,v.CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, amunicipality, and MORTGAGERESOLUTION PARTNERS LLC;Defendants.))))))))))))))))))))))))Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION FOR PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT THEREOF
A
CCOMPANYING
P
APERS
:
 
Declarations of JohnC. Ertman, Esq., David Stevens, Phillip R.Burnaman, II, Kevin Trogdon, and RonaldoReyes; [Proposed] Order 
 
Date: September 13, 2013Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer 
 
Case3:13-cv-03663-CRB Document8 Filed08/08/13 Page1 of 34
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ...................................................................................................ASTATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ..........................................................................................ASUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... iI. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 1A. The Parties .......................................................................................................................... 1B. The Richmond Seizure Program ....................................................................................... 1C. The Richmond Loans and the RMBS Trusts .................................................................... 2D. California Eminent Domain Law ...................................................................................... 3E. The Immediate and Irreparable Harm Caused by the Richmond Seizure Program ......... 4II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 5A. Plaintiffs Are Highly Likely to Prevail on Their Claims .................................................. 61. Richmond Cannot Take Extraterritorial Property ................................................ 6a. Under the U.S. Constitution, Richmond Cannot Seize Loans of Out-of-State Trusts ........................................................................................... 6 b. California Law Prohibits the Seizures of Loans Outside of Richmond .................................................................................................. 72. Defendants Are Prohibited from Seizing Property for Private Use ..................... 83. The Program Violates the Dormant Commerce Clause’s Ban on DirectRegulation of Interstate Commerce .................................................................... 114. The Program Cannot Satisfy the Dormant Commerce Clause’s BalancingTest ....................................................................................................................... 145. The Program Violates the Contracts Clause of the United StatesConstitution .......................................................................................................... 156. Defendants Threaten to Violate the Constitutional Rights of the Trusts and Their Beneficiaries Acting Under Color of State and Local Law ...................... 16B. Plaintiffs Will Be Irreparably Harmed Absent an Injunction ......................................... 18C. The Balance of Equities Tips Sharply in Plaintiffs’ Favor ............................................. 20D. The Public Interest Favors an Injunction ........................................................................ 20III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 21
Case3:13-cv-03663-CRB Document8 Filed08/08/13 Page2 of 34
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
 
99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redev. Agency
,237 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ....................................................................................... 11
 Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co
.,398 U.S. 144 (1970) ...................................................................................................................... 18
 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell
,632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................ 5
 Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
,559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ v, 19, 20
 Bacchus Imps. v. Dias
,468 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1984) ............................................................................................................. 14
 Baldwin v. Missouri
,281 U.S. 586 (1930) ........................................................................................................................ 7
City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders
,174 Cal. App. 3d 414 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1985) .............................................................. iii, 13, 14
City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC 
,171 Cal. App. 4th 93 (2009) ........................................................................................................... 8
Cottonwood Christian Ctr. v. Cypress Redev. Agency
,218 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ........................................................................... 11, 18, 21
 Dealer Computer Serv., Inc. v. Ford 
, No. CV 12-1970, 2012 WL 6054846 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012) .................................................. 19
 Delaware v. New York 
,507 U.S. 490 (1993) ........................................................................................................................ 6
 Dep’t of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis
,553 U.S. 328 (2008) ...................................................................................................................... 12
 Edgar v. MITE Corp.
,457 U.S. 624 (1982) .......................................................................................................... 12, 13, 14
 EIG Global Energy Partners, LLC v. TCW Asset Mgmt. Co.
, No. CV 12-7173, 2012 WL 5990113 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2012) ........................................... v, 19
Case3:13-cv-03663-CRB Document8 Filed08/08/13 Page3 of 34

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->