ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 4

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

On March 8, 2018, plaintiffs Vincent Baldwin and Angela Zhu filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order that would prevent the foreclosure sale of real property in which they claim interest, located at 2100 Arrowhead Dr., Oakland, California, 94611. (Dkt. No. 4 ("TRO Motion"); see also Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2 ("Memo ISO TRO Motion").) According to plaintiffs' TRO Motion, the foreclosure sale is scheduled for today, March 9, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. (Memo ISO TRO Motion at 3.)

There is no showing in plaintiffs' TRO Motion that explains why plaintiffs waited until— quite literally—the eve of the foreclosure sale to seek injunctive relief. The Complaint alleges that a Notice of Default was recorded nearly one year ago, on March 28, 2017, and a Notice of Trustee's Sale was recorded on July 13, 2017, which announced that the property would be subject to a Trustee's sale on August 18, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 19, 21; see also Dkt. No. 4-2 Exh. I.) Nowhere in the record is there any information pertaining to a revised Notice of Trustee's Sale that set the purported current sale date of today, March 9, 2018, and "the Court [is] unable to grant relief without a notice of sale or other documentation showing the trustee's sale of the Subject Property is scheduled to take place today." Taimani v. Residential Mortg. Loan Trust 2013-TT2, No. 16-cv-02992-YGR, 2016 WL 9175877, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2016). California law requires that such notice of sale be given at least 20 days in advance of the sale. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.8(a)(1). Plaintiffs do not allege there was any defect with that notice or explain why they waited until the last possible moment to attempt to block the sale. The Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs' TRO Motion.1

This Order terminates Docket Number 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.