ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 23

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Penina Tagoia and William Tagoia have filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and request for an order to show cause and set a hearing on a preliminary injunction to restrain defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP, Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC, Cheryl Lynn Asher, Erica Denise Jones, Edward Alan Treder, Manuel Loeza, Clayton Allen Goff, Brandye N. Foreman, Gregory Geiser, and Does 1-100, inclusive (collectively, "defendants"), and their agents, assigns, and/or transferees from:

(Dkt. No 23 at 2 ("TRO Motion").)1

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). Preliminary injunctive relief, whether in the form of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-690 (2008) (internal citations omitted). In order to obtain such relief, plaintiffs must establish four factors: (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. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

With respect to the success on the merits and balance of harms factors, courts will permit a plaintiff making a strong showing on one factor to offset a weaker showing on the other, so long as all four factors are established. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). For example, if the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs' favor, they may satisfy the likelihood of success factor by showing that there are at least "serious questions" favoring the merits of their claim. Id. Nevertheless, a preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that plaintiff is entitled to such relief," Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, and the moving party bears the burden of meeting all four Winter prongs. Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1135; DISH Network Corp. v. FCC, 653 F.3d 771, 776-77 (9th Cir. 2011).

Here, plaintiffs have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.2 Although plaintiffs' complaint consists of thirteen causes of action (see Dkt. No. 1), their TRO Motion fails to specify on which claim plaintiffs bring their motion. It appears that the only claim upon which plaintiffs' TRO Motion is based is their wrongful foreclosure claim. (See Memo ISO TRO Motion at 8 (referencing a "problematic sale leading to damages for wrongful foreclosure"); id. ("The trustee's sale was held improperly and constitutes a wrongful foreclosure.").) Under California law, the elements of a wrongful foreclosure cause of action are: "(1) the trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust; (2) the party attacking the sale . . . was prejudiced or harmed; and (3) in cases where the trustor or mortgagor challenges the sale, the trustor or mortgagor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering." Miles v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 408-09 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). At minimum, plaintiffs have failed to establish the prejudice element of their wrongful foreclosure claim, as they have not demonstrated sufficiently any prejudice beyond the completion of the foreclosure.3 Having failed to establish at least one element of their wrongful foreclosure claim, plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.4

Moreover, plaintiffs' TRO Motion does not establish that they are likely to suffer immediate irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs invoke the maxim that losing one's home is irreparable harm. (See Memo ISO TRO Motion at 4.) ("[I]mmediate and irreparable injury will result, such that Plaintiffs will lose their home, and will be evicted from their home . . . .").) "Although the loss of one's home may constitute irreparable harm, in the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits, loss of property alone is not sufficient to obtain a TRO." Jones v. H.S.B.C. (USA), 844 F.Supp.2d 1099, 1101 (S.D. Cal. 2012); cf. Eshraghi v. Cal. Bank & Trust Corp., No. CV F 11-1733 LJO SKO, 2011 WL 4971956, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011) (where plaintiff failed to establish that he was entitled to remain on the property, loss of the property was not irreparable injury). Here, defendants foreclosed upon plaintiffs' property and now seek to evict them. While the Court is sympathetic to plaintiffs' circumstances, the pending TRO Motion does not establish that plaintiff is entitled to the extraordinary and drastic remedy of injunctive relief.5

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' TRO Motion is DENIED.

This Order terminates Docket Number 23.

IT IS SO ORDERED.