HALLETT v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION-AZ, CV-11-1659-PHX-JAT. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120327949
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 75). The Motion repeats arguments that Plaintiff made in his previous Motion for Temporary Injunction. On March 21, 2012, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction and, on March 22, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 74). There is nothing in Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Temporar
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 75). The Motion repeats arguments that Plaintiff made in his previous Motion for Temporary Injunction. On March 21, 2012, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction and, on March 22, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 74). There is nothing in Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Temporary..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 75). The Motion repeats arguments that Plaintiff made in his previous Motion for Temporary Injunction. On March 21, 2012, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction and, on March 22, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 74).
There is nothing in Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 75) that would change the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the Court made in its March 22, 2012 Order (Doc. 74).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 75) is denied.
To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the Court's March 22, 2012 Order (Doc. 74), such reconsideration is denied.
Source: Leagle
