Case Activity (30425)

1. Order | Filed: June 24, 2026 | Entered: June 24, 2026 LONG et al v. PHH MORTAGE CORPORATION et al

   Real Property: Foreclosure | Pennsylvania Western

   Order Reopening Case ~Util - Case Reopened

   ORDER REOPENING CASE. On 5/13/2026, the Court denied Plaintiffs renewed 3 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the clerk to mark this case administratively closed unless and until Plaintiffs paid the $405.00 filing fee. Plaintiffs paid the filing fee on 6/8/2026, thereby reopening the case. ECF No. 5. Accordingly, this case is HEREBY reopened. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/24/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc)

2. Order | Filed: June 10, 2026 | Entered: June 10, 2026 LONG et al v. PHH MORTAGE CORPORATION et al

   Real Property: Foreclosure | Pennsylvania Western

   Order

   ORDER re 7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs HELEN BAYNES and BLOSSIE LONG. In the 7 Motion, Plaintiffs move this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to immediately halt any foreclosure activity... concerning their home. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), the Court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party only if (1) "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition" and (2) "the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Further, pursuant to Section III.C of the undersigned's Practices and Procedures (available at: https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/Wiegand_Practices_Procedures_2024.pdf), [c]onsistent with Rule 65, the Court will not issue a temporary restraining order: (1) when the opposing party has been served; (2) when the motion provides no certification indicating that prompt service cannot be accomplished; or (3) when the motion is unaccompanied by an affidavit or verified complaint consistent with Rule 65(b)(1)(A)." Here, the Motion, which is signed only by one Plaintiff Helen Baynes - has failed to provide a certification describing the efforts made to provide notice, which is required under Rule 65(b)(1). In addition, while the 7 Motion includes a certificate of emergency, signed only by Ms. Baynes, which states that Defendants have accelerated Plaintiffs mortgage loan and may initiate a sheriff sale without further notice, the certificate fails to set forth specific facts clearly showing that immediate and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs before Defendants can be hard in opposition, as required under Rule 65(b)(1). Plaintiffs have also attached as an exhibit recent correspondence from Defendant PHH Mortgage Company, also known as Onity Mortgage Corporation, informing Plaintiffs that their loan has been accelerated, but nothing in the [7-4] correspondence suggests that a sheriffs sale of Plaintiffs home has been scheduled or is imminent. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the 7 Motion is DENIED IN PART, to the extent Plaintiffs seek a TRO. However, the Court will defer ruling on the 7 Motions request for a preliminary injunction and will move promptly on that request for relief once Defendants have been served and have entered an appearance in this case. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/09/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc)

3. 30423 additional result(s)