Tami Ohana

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
In re
TAMI OHANA,
Debtor.
Case No. 2:14-bk-20333-RK
Chapter 7
ORDER ON EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE STAY OF WRIT OF
EXECUTION OF REAL PROPERTY
On May 28, 2014, Tami Ohana (“Debtor”) filed an Emergency Motion for
Immediate Stay of Writ of Execution of Real Property (Docket No. 5) (the “Emergency
Motion”).
Having reviewed and considered the moving papers, and construing the
Emergency Motion as an application for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) without
notice since Debtor is seeking emergency relief to restrain her landlord from executing on
a judgment for possession of leased premises, the court hereby denies the Emergency
Motion on the ground that Debtor has failed to show that she made adequate efforts to
notify the party against which emergency injunctive relief is sought, Coronado Towers
LLC (the “landlord”), or that there are justifiable reasons for issuing the TRO without
notice and injunctive relief may only be sought by an adversary proceeding, which has
FILED & ENTERED
MAY 28 2014
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	bakchell
Case 2:14-bk-20333-RK Doc 6 Filed 05/28/14 Entered 05/28/14 16:45:24 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not been brought. Rules 7001(7) and 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, generally incorporating by reference, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; Local Bankruptcy Rule 7065-1; see Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord,
452 F.3d 1126, 1131-1132 (9th Cir. 2006). Based on the record before this court, Debtor
does not describe in her moving papers any effort on her part to notify the landlord of the
application for TRO (i.e., the emergency motion) or why emergency relief can be
justifiably issued without notice to the landlord. Accordingly, the court denies the
Emergency Motion without prejudice and will issue a separate Order to Show Cause re
Issuance of Preliminary Injunction.
The court makes no determination whether an automatic stay is or is not in place
due to the prepetition judgment for possession for the landlord from an unlawful detainer
proceeding and whether there is a cure pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a)(3), (b)(22) and
(l).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Debtor’s Emergency Motion is denied without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
###
Date: May 28, 2014
Case 2:14-bk-20333-RK Doc 6 Filed 05/28/14 Entered 05/28/14 16:45:24 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 2