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)

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