Grady et al v. Tri-City National Bank

Filing 24

ORDER that Plaintiffs' 23 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied; ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 18 Motion to Exceed Page Limit is granted to the extent that Doc. 16 is deemed to be properly filed; and that Defendant's 22 Motion to Exceed Page Limit is granted to the extent that Doc. 21 is deemed to be properly filed. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 2/19/2013.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael Grady and Jennifer Grady, Plaintiffs, 10 11 vs. 12 Tri-City National Bank, 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 12-2507-PHX-JAT ORDER 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 17 23). This case arises following a Trustee’s Sale of Plaintiffs’ residence. A forcible entry and 18 detainer action was filed in state court, and a writ of eviction issued following a hearing in 19 that action. Plaintiffs now seek to have this Court enjoin the execution of that writ. 20 Plaintiffs premise their motion on two legal theories: lack of notice of the Trustee’s 21 sale and the tort of wrongful foreclosure. Plaintiffs rely on Martenson v. RG Financing, 22 2010 WL 334648 (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2010) and Schrock v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Assn., 23 2011 WL 3348227 (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2011) for these theories. However, in Madison v. 24 Groseth, 279 P.3d 633, 638 ¶15 (Ariz. App. 2012), the Arizona Court of Appeals held that 25 failing to obtain an injunction prior to the Trustee’s sale “waives all defenses and objections 26 to the sale.” Thus, Madison calls into doubt both of these district court holdings. 27 To decide the request for a temporary restraining order in this case, however, the 28 Court need not decide the scope of Madison. This Court need not reach this issue because 1 this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims that are, in effect, appeals of cases 2 decided by state courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); and D.C. 3 Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). For this Court to enjoin the state court’s 4 decision in the forcible entry and detainer action, this Court would be acting as an appellate 5 court over the state court. Therefore, this Court will not enter the injunction. 6 Additionally, even if the state court’s order has not reached final judgment, “Younger 7 v. Harris[], and its progeny espouse a strong federal policy against federal-court interference 8 with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.”. Middlesex 9 County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). For the same 10 reasons as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court cannot, consistent with the Younger 11 abstention doctrine, enter an injunction enjoining the state court from enforcing its own writ 12 of eviction on a matter of purely state law. 13 Based on the foregoing, 14 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 23) 15 16 17 18 19 20 is denied; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to exceed page limit (Doc. 18) is granted to the extent that Doc. 16 is deemed to be properly filed; and IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to exceed page limit (Doc. 22) is granted to the extent that Doc. 21 is deemed to be properly filed. DATED this 19th day of February, 2013. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?