Mashak et al v. State of Minnesota et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 2, 2011. (DML)

-JSM Mashak et al v. State of Minnesota et al

Doc. 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

DON MASHAK and FIRST NATIONAL REPOSSESSORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT, MARY YUNKER, TIMOTHY R. BLOOMQUIST, DIANA LONGRIE, LEE WOLFGRAM, DANNETTE MEEKS-HULL, MICHAEL HULL, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, Defendants.

Civil No. 11-473 (JRT/JSM)

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Don Mashak, PO Box 231, Albertville, MN 55301, pro se plaintiff. First National Repossessors, Inc., 950 Highway 10 Number 4, Elk River, MN 55330, unrepresented.

Plaintiffs Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc. ("First National") moved for a temporary restraining order on February 24, 2011 against numerous parties, requesting the Court enjoin the Minnesota state courts from further action on a case brought by Mashak against some former employees. (Docket No. 3.) This motion is the second motion for injunctive relief brought by Mashak. In a former action, Mashak v. Meeks-Hull, et al., No. 11-290, slip op. at 2 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2011), the Court dismissed a motion for removal as improper, and noted that to hear the case as an original action, the Court would need a basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court also explained that it

21

Dockets.Justia.com

was limited in its ability to enjoin a state court from acting. Plaintiffs again request the Court to enjoin the state court from taking further action in the case. A federal statute, the Anti-Injunction Act states: 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. § 2283. "Suffice it to say that the Act is an absolute prohibition against any injunction of any state-court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of the three specifically defined exceptions in the Act." Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 630 (1977). Furthermore, these exceptions are construed narrowly. United States ex rel. Goeggel v. Barnes-Jewish Hosp., No. 4:96CV2208, 2006 WL 2990496, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 19, 2006). Plaintiffs have not pointed to an Act of Congress providing express authorization, nor highlighted how an injunction is necessary for this Court's jurisdiction, nor noted a previous federal court judgment in need of protection. As a result, the Court denies plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. Such an order on the record of this case would violate the Anti-Injunction Act, not falling within any of the three exceptions. Furthermore, a corporation, as an artificial entity, must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney. Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Therefore, First National must obtain representation to bring the current action.

-2-

ORDER O Based on th foregoing and all th files, rec B he g, he cords, and proceeding herein, I IS gs IT HEREB ORDER BY RED that: 1. DENIED D. 2. First National Repossessor Inc. mu obtain c R rs, ust counsel wi ithin thirty (30) Plaint tiff's motio for a te on emporary r restraining order [Do ocket No. 3 is 3]

days of the date of this Order or it will be dismissed from the ca t t o e ase.

DATED March 1, 2011 D: at Minne eapolis, Min nnesota.

____ ___ __s/ JOHN R TUNHEI R. IM U United Stat District J tes Judge

-3-