Amador v. Quicken Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER, signed by Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee on 12/5/16: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 12 is DENIED as moot. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Daniel Amador,
Plaintiff,

10
11

Quicken Loans, Inc. et al.,

13

ORDER

vs.

12

No. CV 16-1357-SMM

Defendants.

14

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining

15

Order (TRO). (Doc. 12.) This is Plaintiff’s second request for relief. The Court denied

16

Plaintiff’s first request1 based upon 1) the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401

17

U.S. 37 (1971) and 2) failure of service on Defendants. (Doc. 9.)

18

In the motion at bar, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant him relief because the Court

19

was wrong to deny Plaintiff’s first motion for failure of service. (Doc. 12 at 2.)

20

Coincidently, on the same day Plaintiff filed this motion, the Court issued an Amended

21

Order, saying:

22
23
24
25
26

In its original Order denying the TRO, the Court erred by stating…that to
grant the TRO would prejudice the Defendants because Plaintiff had not yet
served Defendants. The Court wishes to correct the record and state that it
was not Plaintiff’s fault that Defendants had not yet been served. Indeed,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), the Plaintiff must await a Court Order

27
1

28

In Plaintiff’s first request for relief, he said he would suffer immediate and
irreparable injury if Defendants were not enjoined from proceeding with foreclosure on
his property. (Doc. 8 at 5.)

1

directing the Clerk of Court to issue summons for each Defendant.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(Doc. 10) Importantly, the Court affirmed its denial of the TRO, saying that
“notwithstanding the Court’s error, the Court’s analysis under Younger remains
unchanged, as does its denial of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order.” (Id.)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny “espouse a strong federal
policy against federal-court interference with state judicial proceedings absent
extraordinary circumstances.” Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar
Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). Younger applies to noncriminal judicial proceedings
when important state interests are involved, such as “vindication of important state
policies or for the functioning of the state judicial system.” Id. at 432.
In this case, Defendant DVP, LP obtained a lawful writ of possession against
Plaintiff in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. (Doc. 8 at 80-81.)
Obviously, California has an important interest in enforcing lawful foreclosures obtained
in its own court system. This Court will not interfere with Defendant’s lawful writ of
possession. The Court will not grant a TRO in order to forestall the foreclosure action
against Plaintiff.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 12.)
Dated this 5th day of December, 2016.

23
24
Honorable Stephen M. McNamee
Senior United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-