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
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?