Allen et al v. LPP et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Declaratory Judgment; denying 5 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/20/13. (jrc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KWAN D. ALLEN & JELINDA GIBSON
ALLEN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 13-6332

LPP, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (1)
ORDER

The following motions are before the Court: Ex Parte Motion for Declaratory
Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Restraining Order Urgently (Rec. Doc. 2) and
Amended Ex Parte Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and
Restraining Order Urgently (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by pro se Plaintiffs, Kwan D. Allen and
Jelinda Gibson Allen. The motions are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Kwan D. Allen and Jelinda Gibson Allen filed this federal complaint pro se

on November 4, 2013, seeking inter alia to have this Court intervene on their behalf in
ongoing1 state court foreclosure proceedings that certain of the defendants instituted against
them. Plaintiffs complain that LLP/MGC had instituted a foreclosure action in either 2009
or 2010 and ultimately settled the matter with Plaintiffs by entering into a loan modification
agreement. Plaintiffs contend that the note holders had no intention of honoring the
agreement because even though Mr. Allen made several attempts to pay on the debt he was
told by certain defendants not to make any payments. Then sometime in late 2013
Defendants once again initiated foreclosure proceedings in Orleans Parish court. Plaintiffs
complain that Defendants continue to pursue foreclosure relief in state court and that the

It is unclear from the pleadings whether the state court proceedings have concluded in a
final judgment or remain pending.
1

attorneys for the note holders have ignored requests by Plaintiffs’ state court counsel to try to
resolve the matter.
Plaintiffs’ complaint in this Court seeks a declaratory judgment to determine the
parties’ respective rights vis à vis the indebtedness and mortgage on the property. Plaintiffs
also seek injunctive relief from this Court asking the Court to enjoin the state court
proceedings. Plaintiffs seek damages, both compensatory and punitive.
Via this Order and Reasons the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ motions for emergency
relief only. The Court assumes without deciding solely for the purpose of clarifying that
Plaintiffs are not entitled to emergency relief from a federal court that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.2
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs request emergency relief in the form of a declaratory judgment of the rights

of the parties and injunctive relief to prevent the state court from seizing and selling their
property.
The request for ex parte emergency declaratory relief is DENIED. Assuming that the

Plaintiffs are attempting to rely on federal question jurisdiction because they claim that
the foreclosure proceedings against them constitute a violation of their constitutional rights.
Recognizing that pro se pleadings are entitled to a liberal interpretation, see Champion v. United
States, 421 Fed. Appx. 418, 420-21 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished (citing Tex. Comptroller of Pub.
Accts. v. Liuzza, 610 F.3d 937, 941 n.4 (5th Cir. 2010)), Plaintiffs’ pleadings nonetheless suffer
from a lack of any factual support whatsoever for the contention that any federal right is
implicated in this case. The crux of the complaint is that Defendants have failed to honor the
loan modification agreement from 2010 as evinced by their initiation of the state court action,
but even if Defendants have done so in bad faith or maliciously this conduct does not violate the
federal constitution. Absent federal question jurisdiction, this Court will be completely without
jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the parties are not completely diverse in citizenship, and
the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 does not provide an independent basis for
subject matter jurisdiction. In re B-727 Aircraft, 272 F.3d 264, 270 (5th Cir. 2001). And of course,
Plaintiffs are surely going to face a Rooker-Feldman challenge once a final judgment issues in
state court because federal courts have no appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions. Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (citing Rooker v. Fidelity
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923)).
2

2

Court would even have subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action, see
note 1 supra, under the Declaratory Judgment Act a district court has discretion to decide
whether to entertain the action. St. Paul Insurance Co. v. Trejo, 39 F.3d 585, 590 (5th Cir.
1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2201)). Relevant factors that the Court must consider in
determining whether to entertain an action include whether there is a pending state court
action in which all of the matters in controversy may be fully litigated, and whether retaining
the lawsuit in federal court would serve the purposes of judicial economy. Trejo, 39 F.3d at
590-91 (quoting Travelers Ins. Co. v. La. Farm Bureau Federation, 996 F.2d 774, 778 (5th
Cir. 1993)). Additionally, the Court must ascertain whether it is being called upon to
construe a state judicial decree involving the same parties and entered by the court before
whom the parallel state suit between the same parties is pending. Id.
Plaintiffs are essentially seeking to have this Court supervise or take control of the
case against them in state court, which is not something that federal courts are authorized to
do. Assuming arguendo that the Court would find it appropriate to entertain a declaratory
judgment action in this case, emergency relief is not warranted.
The request for emergency injunctive relief is also DENIED. The Anti-Injunction Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2283, governs whether a district court can properly enjoin pending state court
litigation. Newby v. Enron Corp., 338 F.3d 467, 473 (5th Cir. 2003). The Anti-Injunction Act
provides:
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in
a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where
necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
28 U.S.C.A. § 2283. Because the Anti-Injunction Act serves as a general prohibition on a
federal court’s ability to grant an injunction to stay proceedings in state court, one of the
Act’s three enumerated exceptions must apply in order for an injunction to issue. See

3

Blanchard v. Park Plantation, LLC, 553 F.3d 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2008). None of the Act’s
exceptions are even arguably applicable in this case.3
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion for Declaratory Judgment,
Injunctive Relief, and Restraining Order Urgently (Rec. Doc. 2) and Amended Ex
Parte Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Restraining
Order Urgently (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by pro se Plaintiffs, Kwan D. Allen and Jelinda Gibson
Allen are DENIED.
November 20, 2013

_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2642 provides the mechanism to take a
suspensive appeal from an order directing the issuance of a writ of seizure and sale. Further,
article 2004(A) allows for annulment of a judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices. The Court
strongly advises Plaintiffs to avail themselves of the remedies available to them under state law
because a federal court will not likely be able to grant them the relief that they seek .
3

4