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)

Download PDF
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

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?