Aquino v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying motion for stay and denying request for TRO. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 11/01/2012. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2012)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
LUZ AQUINO,
7
Plaintiff,

No. C 12-5548 PJH

8
v.
9
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY AND DENYING REQUEST FOR
TRO

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Plaintiff Luz Aquino (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this court on October 29, 2012.

14

The cover page of the complaint states that plaintiff is “filing a TRO to stop foreclosure and

15

eviction from property.” The court cannot determine whether plaintiff intends the complaint

16

itself to be a request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), or whether the plaintiff

17

merely intends to request a TRO at a later date. In any case, the complaint appears to

18

seek a “stay” of state court actions, so the court will analyze the motion for stay and the

19

quasi-TRO together, since they appear to seek the same relief.

20

The court notes that the Anti-Injunction Act constrains the ability of federal courts to

21

stay state court actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (“A court of the United States may not grant

22

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

23

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

24

judgments.”). The Act “is an absolute prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings,

25

unless the injunction falls within one of [the] three specifically defined exceptions.” Atlantic

26

Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 286

27

(1970). The three exceptions are narrowly construed, and “doubts as to the propriety of a

28

federal injunction against a state court proceeding should be resolved in favor of permitting

1

the state action to proceed.” Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987).

2

Plaintiff does not explain what the underlying state court action is, but based on

3

plaintiff’s expressed intention to “stop foreclosure and eviction from property,” it presumably

4

is a state law unlawful detainer action filed against plaintiff. Accordingly, none of the three

5

exceptions would apply. Staying state court proceedings in an unlawful detainer case is

6

not expressly authorized by Congress, is not necessary to aid the state court’s jurisdiction,

7

nor would a stay protect or effectuate this court’s judgments. A number of district courts

8

have found that a stay of unlawful detainer proceedings does not fall into one of the

9

exceptions listed in the Act. See, e.g., Diaz v. National City Bank, 2012 WL 2129916 at *2
(S.D. Cal. June 12, 2012); Carrasco v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2012 WL 646251 at *3-4

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2012); Sato v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, 2012 WL 368423 at *2 (N.D.

12

Cal. Feb. 3, 2012).

13
14
15

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a stay of state court
proceedings and/or plaintiff’s request for TRO are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
Dated: November 1, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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