Vogan et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/11/2012 DENYING 35 Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order; GRANTING 38 Request for Judicial Notice. (Michel, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BILL VOGAN and HAROLD TRAUPEL, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., D/B/A ) WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; U.S. ) BANKCORP, D/B/A U.S. BANK, ) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE ) FOR WFMBS 2005-AR12; FIRST ) AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING ) SOLUTIONS, LLC, F/K/A FIRST ) AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEE ) SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. 2:11-CV-02098 JAM-KJN ORDER DENYING TRO APPLICATION 21 This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte 22 Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and OSC Re Preliminary 23 Injunction” (Doc. #35) (“TRO Application”). 24 opposed by Defendants (Doc. #37). 25 Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) in support of their Opposition 26 (Doc. #38). 27 28 The TRO Application is Defendants have submitted a The RJN is granted. Plaintiffs filed their TRO Application after 5:00 p.m. on May 9, 2012. Plaintiffs’ TRO Application seeks an order from this 1 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 1 Court enjoining an unlawful detainer trial filed against them in 2 Nevada County Superior Court and scheduled to begin on May 14, 3 2012. 4 25, 2012 and the action has been pending since October 21, 2011. 5 Plaintiffs have not provided this Court with any explanation as to 6 why they waited until the eleventh hour to file their TRO 7 Application. 8 whether Plaintiffs could have sought relief by motion for 9 preliminary injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for The unlawful detainer trial has been scheduled since April Local Rule 231(b) allows this Court to consider 10 seeking last minute relief by motion for temporary restraining 11 order. 12 motion should it find that the applicant unduly delayed in seeking 13 injunctive relief. 14 Plaintiffs’ unexplained delay in bringing their motion for a TRO 15 constitutes laches, and on this ground DENIES this TRO Application. 16 In addition, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ TRO Application 17 on the ground that it is prevented from entering the TRO Plaintiffs 18 seek due to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 USC § 2283. 19 statute, a federal court is barred from enjoining or staying 20 proceedings in state court. 21 includes injunctions directed at the parties rather than the state 22 court itself. 23 interpreted narrowly. 24 Anti-Injunction Act applies in this case. 25 the exception for “injunctions necessary in aid of the Court’s 26 jurisdiction” 28 USC § 2283, is applicable but cite no authority in 27 support of their argument. 28 ample authority in support of their argument that the unlawful This Local Rule also authorizes this Court to deny the TRO In the instant case, the Court concludes that Under this The statute is interpreted broadly and The Act carves out three exceptions which are to be None of the three narrow exceptions to the Plaintiffs argue that Defendants, on the other hand, submit 2 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 1 detainer action poses no threat to this Court’s jurisdiction and, 2 therefore, under the Anti-Injunction Act this Court must deny 3 Plaintiffs’ TRO Application. 4 Mortgage, FSB, 626 F.Supp.2d 1052 (E.D. Cal. 2009); Brousard v. 5 City of Pasadena, No. CV 09-7079 AHM (FFM), 2010 WL 135331 (C.D. 6 Cal. Jan. 11, 2010). 7 See, e.g., Scherbenske v. Wachovia The Court need not reach Defendants’ other arguments raised in 8 their Opposition to the TRO Application. For the foregoing 9 reasons, Plaintiffs’ TRO Application is DENIED. If Plaintiffs 10 still desire to have this Court consider issuing a preliminary 11 injunction they should notice such a motion for a date on the 12 Court’s regularly scheduled civil law and motion calendar. 13 noticed, the parties shall file their briefs in support of and in 14 opposition to this motion in accordance with the Court’s Local 15 Rules. 16 17 Once IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 11, 2012 18 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ 19 U. S. District Court Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

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?