Bryan v. Carlsbad, City of et al

Filing 13

ORDER Denying 12 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Bryan is asking for, this order does not address those issues. The motion is Denied, and the request for judicial notice is Denied as moot. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/2/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CATHERINE BRYAN,

12

CASE NO. 17cv697-LAB (BLM)
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

vs.
13

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Catherine Bryan submitted an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining

18

order (TRO), with attached exhibits. By discrepancy order, the Court accepted the motion.

19

The motion makes clear Bryan is not seeking a preliminary injunction.

20

Application at 2:16–21.)1 Instead, she asks for a TRO so that she will have time to obtain

21

enough discovery to seek a preliminary injunction.

(TRO

22

In an earlier case, Kokopelli Community Workshop Corp. v. Select Portfolio Servicing,

23

Inc., 10cv1605-CAB (KSC), Bryan litigated ownership of the property and lost. She then took

24

an appeal, which the Ninth Circuit has yet to resolve.2 The Court has no jurisdiction to make

25
26
27

1

The motion is divided into an “Application for TRO and Order to Show Cause” and
a memorandum in support of the application.
2

28

That case, 13-56681, Bryan v. Select Portfolio Servicing, was opened on September
26, 2013. The latest docket entry, dated May 5, 2017, is a letter sent to defense counsel in
response to his inquiry about the case status. The letter says the case is due to be assigned
-1-

17cv697

1

any rulings on issues that are on appeal in that case; only the Ninth Circuit can do that. See

2

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).

3

The complaint in this case alleges that the City of Carlsbad and its code officer Scot

4

Rudinger have been using municipal property codes as a pretext to harass and oppress her.

5

It alleges that Defendant’s agents have illegally intruded on her property and singled her out

6

for arbitrary enforcement of property regulations. The buyer(s) and purported new owner(s)

7

of the property are not named as Defendants in this case.

8

As a result of litigation in state court, the house is scheduled to be demolished this

9

month. (Memorandum at 15:17–16:4.) Bryan asks the Court to “enjoin [Defendants] from

10

condemning and demolishing her home . . .” after her failure to make mandated repairs.

11

(Memorandum at 20:17–19.) She believes that if her house is demolished, she will lose

12

theequity she says she still has in her home. (Id. at 3:10–15.) Bryan believes the state court

13

proceeding was carried out in a manner that violates her federal due process rights. (Id. at

14

16:1–17:11.)

15

The motion is really raising two groups of claims. First, Bryan argues that the state

16

court violated her constitutional rights when it authorized an inspection warrant and later

17

adjudicated the city’s claim for condemnation and demolition of the house.

18

arguments are based on matters at issue in this case. Second, she claims that she will be

19

harmed because of her ownership in the house. She contends the demolition will extinguish

20

her Truth in Lending Act (TILA) based rights to the $2 million in equity she has in the

21

property. Those arguments are based on matters at issue in the case on appeal.

Those

22

The Anti-injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, generally prevents this Court from enjoining

23

state court proceedings. The only exception to that prohibition that might apply here is that

24

a court can grant injunctions in support of its jurisdiction.3 But this Court lacks jurisdiction

25
26
27
28

to a panel of judges within the next few months.
3

The other exceptions are where an act of Congress expressly authorizes the
injunction (which is not the case here), and where an injunction is necessary to protect or
effectuate the Court’s judgments. But because the Court has not issued any judgments in
this case, that exception is not applicable either.
-2-

17cv697

1

over the issue of ownership, TILA rights, and related issues that are on appeal. Currently,

2

the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over those issues, and only that court could enjoin state

3

proceedings that might impinge on Bryan’s claims in case 10cv1605. As for the claims at

4

issue in this case, there is no applicable exception to the Anti-injunction Act.

5

condemnation and demolition of the house do not threaten this Court’s jurisdiction over

6

claims pending in this case. Any irregularities in the state court’s proceedings can be

7

litigated in state court, either at the trial court level or on appeal, but they cannot be litigated

8

in this case.

The

9

The motion is defective in a number of other ways, but because the Court lacks

10

jurisdiction to grant the relief Bryan is asking for, this order does not address those issues.

11

The motion is DENIED, and the request for judicial notice is DENIED AS MOOT.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 2, 2017

15
16

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

17cv697