Jara v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC et al

Filing 109

ORDER DENYING 108 THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 9/9/2015.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JOSE ANTONIO JARA,

Case No. 3:11-cv-00419-LB

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
14
15

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

[Re: ECF No. 108]

Defendants.
16
17

This case involves the plaintiff Jose Jara’s assertion of federal and state claims against Aurora

18

Loan Services, LLC and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. in connection with the

19

foreclosure of his property located at 330 Arbor Drive, South San Francisco, California. (Fourth

20

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 72, ¶ 1). The court dismissed the Mr. Jara’s Fourth Amended

21

Complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against Mr. Jara in

22

March 2012. (3/30/12 Order, ECF No. 87; 3/30/12 Judgment, ECF No. 88.) Mr. Jara appealed the

23

court’s final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has yet

24

to rule. (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 91; see Motion, ECF No. 108 at 3.)

25

On September 8, 2015, Mr. Jara filed in this court an “emergency motion under [Ninth] Circuit

26

Rule 27-3” (Emergency and Urgent Motions), which asks the court to issue a temporary

27

restraining order enjoining the defendants from conducting a foreclosure sale that currently is set

28

for September 12, 2015. (Motion, ECF No. 108.)
ORDER (No. 3:11-cv-00419-LB)

“Once a notice of appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters

1
2

being appealed.” Nat’l Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. S.W. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166

3

(9th Cir. 2001) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per

4

curiam); McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731,

5

734 (9th Cir .1982)). “This rule is judge-made; its purpose is to promote judicial economy and

6

avoid the confusion that would ensue from having the same issues before two courts

7

simultaneously.” Id. (citing Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir.1983);

8

20 James Wm. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 303.32[1] (3d ed. 2000)).1
Mr. Jara appealed the court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing

9

his Fourth Amended Complaint. His motion for a temporary restraining order asks the court to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

enjoin the defendants because the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on this appeal. This court,

12

however, is divested of jurisdiction over that matter. Jurisdiction instead lies with the Ninth

13

Circuit. In addition, the court notes that Mr. Jara also filed in his appellate matter a motion asking

14

the Ninth Circuit to enjoin the defendants for the very same reason he asserts here. A ruling on a

15

motion by this court, when the same motion is pending before the Ninth Circuit, would not

16

promote judicial economy and would create unnecessary confusion. Accordingly, the court denies

17

Mr. Jara’s motion.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: September 9, 2015
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

There is an exception that does not apply here. “The district court retains jurisdiction during the
pendency of an appeal to act to preserve the status quo.” Nat’l Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
S.W. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). “This exception to the jurisdictional
transfer principle has been codified in Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . .” Id.
Rule 62(c) provides that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final
judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or
grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party’s rights.” Here,
Mr. Jara’s appeal is from the court’s dismissal of his Fourth Amended Complaint, not from an
interlocutory order or judgment granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction.
2
ORDER (No. 3:11-cv-00419-LB)