Turner et al v. Green Tree Servicing

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM RULING denying 11 Letter construed as Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The Court's ruling has no bearing on the Plaintiffs' ability to seek an injunction in state court. Signed by Judge Elizabeth E Foote on 3/7/2016. (crt,Keifer, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DENNIS TURNER AND BLANCHE
TURNER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2508

VERSUS

JUDGE ELIZABETH E. FOOTE

DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, ET AL

MAG. JUDGE MARK HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a motion for a temporary restraining order (''TRO''), filed by the
Plaintiffs. [Record Document 11]. The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the sheriff's sale of their
property at 163 Bayou Loop in Saline, Louisiana, which is scheduled for March 9, 2016.
Because the sheriff's sale that the Plaintiffs seek to enjoin will be effected pursuant
to a writ of seizure and sale issued from the Second Judicial District Court (''JDC'') of
Louisiana, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an injunction staying a proceeding in a state
court. Under the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal court may not grant an injunction to stay
proceedings in a state court unless it is (1) expressly authorized by an Act of Congress, (2)
necessary in aid of the federal court's jurisdiction, or (3) necessary to protect or effectuate
a judgment of a federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (2012). The Plaintiffs' TRO is therefore
viable only if it falls into one of these three exceptions.
The first exception, Congressional authorization of an injunction of a state court
proceeding, applies where the injunction is issued pursuant to a small set of federal laws
that courts have recognized as exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. See Mitchum v.
Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 234-38 (1972). The Plaintiffs' causes of action and grounds for the
Page 1of3

TRO-only one of which could arise under federal law (unfair debt collection practices by
the Defendants)-do not implicate any of these federal laws. See id.; Record Document 12. The Plaintiffs' TRO is therefore not expressly authorized by Congress. See Mitchum,
407 U.S. at 234-38; Record Document 1-2.
The second exception, an injunction of a state court proceeding that is in aid of the
federal court's jurisdiction, applies, inter alia, where there is in rem jurisdiction and the
injunction would stay a state court proceeding that "threatens to dispose of property that
forms the basis for federal in rem jurisdiction." Texas v. United States, 837 F.2d 184, 18687 n.4 (5th Cir. 1988). In rem jurisdiction exists where the action is brought against
"property alone, treated as responsible for the claims asserted by ... the plaintiffs. The
property itself is in such actions the defendant ... and its forfeiture or sale is sought for
the wrong .... " Phillips v. Charles Schreiner Bank, 894 F.2d 127, 132 (5th Cir. 1990)
(quoting Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185, 187 (1886)). Here, because the Plaintiffs
have brought claims against the Defendant entities, rather than the property at 163 Bayou
Loop, the Court~is exercising in personam, rather than in rem, jurisdiction in this matter.
See id.; Record Document l-2. The Plaintiffs' TRO is therefore not necessary in aid of a
federal court's jurisdiction. See Phillips, 894 F.2d at 132; Record Document 1-2.
The third exception, an injunction of a state court proceeding necessary to protect
or effectuate a judgment of a federal court, applies where the injunction would stay a state
court proceeding that is relitigating an action or issue previously decided in federal court.
Regions Bank of Louisiana v. Rivet, 224 F.3d 483, 488 (5th Cir. 2000). In no event does
this exception permit a federal court to enjoin state proceedings "to protect a judgment that

Page 2 of 3

the federal court may make in the future but has not yet made." Laker Airways Ltd. v.
Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 929 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting 17A Charles
Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure§ 4226 (3d ed. 1998 & Supp. 2015). The
Court has not issued any judgment in this matter. The Plaintiffs' TRO is therefore not
necessary to protect or effectuate a judgment of a federal court.
For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiffs' TRO does not fall within any of the AntiInjunction Act's three exceptions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The Court therefore DENIES the
Plaintiffs'TRO. The Court's ruling, of course, has no bearing on the Plaintiffs' ability to seek
an injunction in state court.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 7th day of March, 2016.

(
Elizabeth E:roote'
United States D~ ict Judge

Page 3 of 3