Ros v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/28/2012. (knb)

1

FILED

2

[N~~2_8 2~12 ]

3

CLERIC US OtSTHI'::T COURT
SOUTHERN \)lsr~lCr ',.: (,.·:'UFORNIA

4

BV

5

-----.Y/.ti'1~

{)EPUTV

6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIA L. ROS,

CASE NO. 12-CV-01929 BEN WVG

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

vs.
13
14
15

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, et aI.,

[ECF No. 11]

Defendants.

16
17

On November 21,2012, Plaintiff Maria L. Ros ("Plaintiff') filed an emergency exparte motion

18

for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not

19

issue ("Mot."). ECF No. 11. Plaintiffasks the Court to restrain Defendants from evicting her pursuant

20

to any writ of possession issued in a state court unlawful detainer proceeding. Defendant Deutsche

21

Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsche") has filed an opposition ("Opp'n"). ECF No. 12. Plaintiff

22

has filed a reply ("Reply"). ECF No. 13. Because the federal Anti -Inj unction Act prohibits this Court

23

from interfering with the enforcement of a state court judgment, Plaintiff s motion is DENIED.

24

BACKGROUND

25

Plaintiffs residence in Chula Vista, California has been the subject of a long-running dispute

26

between the parties involving extensive litigation. Deutsche contends it purchased the property at a

27

foreclosure sale in 2008 and filed an unlawful detainer action in San Diego County Superior Court in

28

March 2009. Opp'n 1. Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit in August 2012. ECF. No. 1. She asserts
- 1-

12cv1929

1
several causes of action and challenges Deutsche's interest in the property. Mot. 3-5. Shortly after
2
filing this Complaint, Plaintiff removed the still·pending unlawful detainer complaint, and attempted
3

to consolidate it. This Court remanded the unlawful detainer action to state court for lack of

4 jurisdiction. Deutsche Bank Nat 'I Trust Co. v. Ros, No. 12-CV·01981, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

5

151038, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18,2012). The Superior Court rendered judgment for Deutsche on

6

November 15th and directed the clerk to issue a writ of possession directing the San Diego County

7

Sheriff to remove all occupants from the premises. Mot., Ex. B. Plaintiff asks this Court to stop the

8

eviction. She contends that Deutsche's unlawful detainer action was premised upon on a false

9

"Trustee's Deed Upon Sale," and that Deutsche "concealed said defect from the State Court." Reply

10

2.

11

DISCUSSION

12

The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits a federal court from granting "an injunction to stay

13

proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary

14

in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. "[T]he

15

exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act must be construed narrowly and doubts as to the propriety of

16

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

17

state action to proceed." Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). "It is settled that the

18

prohibition of [the Act] cannot be evaded by addressing the order to the parties or prohibiting

19

utilization ofthe results ofa completed state proceeding." Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of

20

Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970) (emphasis added).

21

Plaintiff asks this Court to prevent enforcement of the state court's judgment. This the

22

Court cannot do. See Halajian v. Deutsche Bank Nat 'I Trust Co., 12-CV-00814·AWI, 2012 WL

23

1833941, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 18,2012) (concluding that the court lacked the authority to

24

postpone enforcement of a state court's unlawful detainer judgment); Dancy v. Aurora Loan

25

Servs., No. C 10-2602 SBA, ECF No. 27 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) ("a federal district court lacks

26

the authority to interfere with or preclude enforcement of a judgment obtained in a [unlawful

27

detainer] action"). The Court is not convinced any exception to the Anti-Injunction Act is

28

applicable here. First, "there is no federal statute authorizing a district court to enjoin a state

- 2-

12cv1929

1 unlawful detainer action." Scherbenske v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1059
2

(E.D. Cal. 2009). Second, an injunction does not appear "necessary in aid" of this Court's

3 jurisdiction. "Courts have applied this second exception in only two scenarios: where the case is
4

removed from the state court and where the federal court acquires in rem or quasi in rem

5 jurisdiction over a case involving real property before the state court does." Martingale LLC v.
6

City ofLouisville, 361 F.3d 297,302 (6th Cir. 2004). That a case may involve aspects of real

7

property law is not, by itself, sufficient. fd. at 303 n.3. Third, an injunction is not necessary to

8

protect or effectuate any judgment.
CONCLUSION

9

10

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff'

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: Novembe;'o2012

13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28
-3-

12cv1929