Turnipseed v. APMT, LLC

Filing 23

ORDER AND REASONS denying 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 6/13/2018. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DORY TURNIPSEED
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS

No. 18-5187
SECTION: “J”(4)

APMT, LLC, d/b/a Tonti
Management

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction (Rec. Doc. 11) filed by Plaintiff, Dory
Turnipseed. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and
preliminary

injunction

halting

a

state

eviction

action

by

Defendant, Tonti Management. In short, Plaintiff argues she is
substantially likely to succeed on the merits because her eviction
is barred for violating the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §
3604.
However, this Court does not reach the merits of her claim as
it finds an injunction (or restraining order) barred by the Anti
Injunction Act (“AIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (2018). The AIA prohibits
this Court from granting “an injunction to stay proceedings in a
State court except [1] as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,
[2] or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, [3] or to
protect

or

effectuate

its

judgments.”

Id.

(emphasis

added).

Plaintiff can point to no Congressional authorization and no

judgment

of

this

Court

endangered

by

the

state

proceeding.

Therefore, this Court may only interfere if it is necessary to aid
its jurisdiction.
It is not necessary. Any decision rendered by the state court
in

the

eviction

proceeding

would

not

destroy

this

Court’s

jurisdiction and Plaintiff is free to raise her FHA claim as a
defense in state court. See Sierra v. City of New York, 528 F.
Supp. 2d 465, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). It is true that some courts
have found that the AIA inapplicable where the federal proceedings
are begun first, but the Fifth Circuit has made clear that in this
jurisdiction it does not matter which courthouse is reached first.
See Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d 877,
885 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he Act applies regardless of when the
federal and state suits were filed.”). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 13th day of June, 2018.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2