Jonathan Anthony Lewis Trust et al v. Flagstar Bank FSB et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 07/05/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

JONATHAN ANTHONY LEWIS TRUST,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
v.
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-02239-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

FLAGSTAR BANK FSB, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 21

13
14

Before the Court is plaintiffs Jonathan Anthony Lewis Trust and Karen Irene Lewis

15

Trust’s “Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

16

Injunction,” filed July 5, 2017, by which plaintiffs seek an order “restraining anyone or any

17

entity, including specifically [d]efendant Crowd Fund Investment Group, LLC . . . from

18

continuing with the prosecution of that certain action filed in Alameda County Superior

19

Court – Case No. RG16838956.” (See Pls.’ Appl. at 1-2.) Having read and considered

20

plaintiffs’ application, the Court rules as follows.

21

Preliminary injunctive relief is only available to a plaintiff who establishes: (1) “he is

22

likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) “he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

23

of preliminary relief,” (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor,” and (4) “an injunction is

24

in the public interest.” See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “At

25

an irreducible minimum, . . . the moving party must demonstrate a fair chance of success

26

on the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” See Pimentel v. Dreyfus,

27

670 F.3d 1096, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation, citation, and alteration

28

omitted).

1

In the instant case, plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite minimum showing.

2

In particular, the Anti-Injunction Act “generally prohibits the federal courts from interfering

3

with proceedings in state courts.” See Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140,

4

145 (1988). As set forth in said statute, “[a] court of the United States may not grant an

5

injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Acts of

6

Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its

7

judgments.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Here, plaintiffs do not explain how the relief they

8

seek falls within one of the statutory exceptions listed in the Anti-Injunction Act, nor does

9

any such exception otherwise appear applicable.

10

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ application is hereby DENIED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: July 5, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2