Sobh v. Bank of America, NA et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER re 22 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 23 Order on Motion for TRO Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHERLY SOBH and
SAM SOBH,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 11-11295
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
TROTT & TROTT, and
AMERICAN PREMIER TITLE,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on July 18, 2011.
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 7, 2011, in an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order, the
Court issued Plaintiffs an Order to Show Cause (Docket #23) why Plaintiff’s cause of action should
not be dismissed on the basis of the abstention doctrine, as most prominently set forth in the
Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s
Response to Order to Show Cause, the Court finds that the instant case does not fall within the
parameters of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. As such, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ cause of
action should not be dismissed on the basis of the Rooker-Felman doctrine. Accordingly, the Court
hereby DISMISSES the Order to Show Cause (Docket #23) issued to Plaintiffs on July 7, 2011.
Notwithstanding this Court’s concurrent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ cause of action and the

fact that Plaintiffs filed this action approximately one week before one or more of the Defendants
began foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiffs in state court, this Court shall abstain from
interfering with the state court foreclosure proceedings, i.e., granting Plaintiffs the injunctive relief
they seek. First, foreclosure proceedings are generally handled by state courts, not federal courts,
and the propriety of determining whether a foreclosure is appropriate is a matter of state law, not
federal law. Second, the federal statutes pursuant to which Plaintiffs have brought this action are:
(1) portions of the Truth In Lending Act (Plaintiffs cite 15 U.S.C. § 1604(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. § 1639(h),
and Regulation Z C.F.R. 226.32(e)(1) in their Complaint), and (2) 39 U.S.C. § 3009 (“nonmailable

matter”). Even if Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to these statutes are viable, however, the relevant
statutes do not authorize this Court to grant Plaintiffs any injunctive relief. As Plaintiffs’ Complaint
recognizes, the alleged Truth In Lending Act violations provide for monetary damages. See 15
U.S.C. § 1604(a)(4). Moreover, the alleged violations under 39 U.S.C. § 3009: (a) provide for

enforcement by the United States, (b) provide for civil monetary penalties, and (c) do no provide for
a private cause of action.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the interests of justice weigh
heavily in favor of allowing the foreclosure proceedings to be addressed in state court. Accordingly,
the Court again concludes that the relief requested by Plaintiffs in their motion for injunctive relief
(Docket #22) must be denied. This Court shall, as appropriate and as necessary, address the federal
claims presented in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

2

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
1.

The Order to Show Cause (Docket #23) issued to Plaintiffs on July 7, 2011,
is DISMISSED.

2.

Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief (Docket #22) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 18, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of
record by electronic or U.S. mail on July 18, 2011.

S/Marie E. Verlinde
Case Manager
[phone]

3