Brumfeil v. U.S. Bank et al

Filing 232

ORDER as to 229 Plaintiff's Ex-parte Emergency MOTION for Order to Extend or Renew Preliminary Injunction or in the Alternative Issue a New Temporary Restraining Order. The parties are advised that the Court will not rule on the Motion until after Defendants' deadline to respond to the Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgment has elapsed, by Judge William J. Martinez on 08/29/2014. (wjmlc2, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02716-WJM-MEH
LISA KAY BRUMFIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. BANK,
LARRY CASTLE, in his individual and corporate capacities,
CASTLE STAWIARSKI, LLC,
ROBERT J. HOPP, in his individual and corporate capacities,
CYNTHIA MARES, Public Trustee in her official capacity,
MERS, a division of MERSCorp, and
DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION

This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Lisa Kay Brumfiel’s “Ex Parte
Emergency Motion to Extend or Renew Preliminary Injunction or in the Alternative Issue
a New Temporary Restraining Order” (“Motion for Injunction”). (ECF No. 229.) Plaintiff
asks the Court for injunctive relief, or for an expansion of the injunctive relief previously
granted on May 14, 2013. (Id.; see ECF No. 120 (granting a preliminary injunction on
the challenged state proceeding for the duration of this action).)
On October 2, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1), holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case. (ECF No.
200.) A Final Judgment against Plaintiff was entered on October 4, 2013. (ECF No.
203.) Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgment on October 7, 2013
(ECF No. 205), and an Emergency Motion for a Limited Evidentiary Hearing on the

12(b)(1) Jurisdictional Issue on October 16, 2013 (ECF No. 207). Both post-judg ment
motions were denied. (ECF Nos. 208 & 224.) Plaintiff has since filed another Motion to
Alter and Amend the Judgment. (ECF No. 225.) The Court directed Defendants to
respond to that motion on or before September 3, 2014. (ECF No. 227.)
In the current posture of this case, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief
Plaintiff seeks in the instant Motion for Injunction. (See ECF No. 200.) The Court thus
finds it prudent to issue a ruling on the pending Motion to Alter and Amend the
Judgment prior to considering the instant Motion for Injunction. Accordingly, the parties
are advised that the Court will not rule on the Motion for Injunction until after
Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Motion to Alter and Am end the Judgment has
elapsed.
Dated this 29th day of August, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2