Coleman v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 91

ORDER Denying 69 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. FURTHER ORDERED that the Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 71) is hereby DISSOLVED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Preliminary Injunction Hearing currently scheduled for Friday, February 1, 2013 is hereby VACATED. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file copies of the following orders in the docket of the Eviction Action, or in the docket of any appeal thereof: (1) this Order; (2) the Courts Order granting the Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 71); and (3) the Courts Order granting in-part and denying-in-part Defendants Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77). Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/31/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

ANTHONY COLEMAN,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6
7
8

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE
SERVICING, INC., also known as
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., et al.
Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-VCF
ORDER

10

This action arises out of the foreclosure proceedings initiated against the property of pro

11
12

se Plaintiff Anthony Coleman (“Plaintiff”). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for

13

Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 69) and Supplemental Memorandum (ECF No. 70).

14

Defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., aka Homeward Residential, Inc.

15

(“AHMSI”)1, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), Power Default

16

Services, Inc. (“Power Default Services”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) have filed a

17

Response (ECF No. 78) in opposition, accompanied by a Declaration and exhibits (ECF No.

18

79). Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 90.)

19

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff initiated this action on February 1, 2011, by filing a Complaint before this

20
21

Court relating to the property he claimed to own and maintain as his residence, located at 6136

22

Benchmark Way, North Las Vegas, NV, 89031 (“the property”). (ECF No. 1.) After granting

23

Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint by

24
25

1

The Court notes that in this action there are two distinct entities that will be discussed – Defendant
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”) and AHMSI Default Services, Inc. (“AHMSI
Default Services”).
Page 1 of 4

1

January 3, 2012. (Order, Dec. 8, 2011, ECF No. 41.) At that time, the Court noted that “[t]he

2

documents submitted by the parties demonstrate that the foreclosure may have been statutorily

3

invalid,” and gave Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to allege a statutory defect under

4

Section 107.080 of Nevada Revised Statutes. (Id.)

5

After Plaintiff filed several successive amended complaints, the Court construed

6

Plaintiff’s filings as a request for extension of time to re-file his Amended Complaint pursuant

7

to the Court’s December 8, 2011, Order, and permitted Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint

8

(ECF No. 49) to stand as the operative Complaint before the Court. (Order, July 20, 2012, ECF

9

No. 61.) Plaintiff’s causes of action, as amended, are: (1) Statutorily Defective Foreclosure

10

Under N.R.S. § 170.080; and (2) Quiet Title. On January 2, 2013, the Court denied a motion to

11

dismiss Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, but granted the motion as to Plaintiff’s Second Cause

12

of Action. (ECF No. 77.)

13

Previously, on June 7, 2012, Bank of New York as Trustee filed a Complaint for

14

Unlawful Detainer in the Justice Court of North Las Vegas Township (the “Justice Court”)

15

thereby initiating Case No. 12CN001288 (the “Eviction Action”). (See Def.’s Resp. Br. Ex. P,

16

ECF No. 78-2.) Ultimately, the Justice Court set a hearing on the Eviction Action for

17

November 26, 2012. (Id.) On the day of the hearing, Plaintiff filed the instant motion

18

requesting that this Court enjoin Defendants from pursuing eviction proceedings. (Mot. for

19

Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 69.)

20

II.

DISCUSSION

21

In their opposition, Moving Defendants first argue that the federal anti-injunction

22

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, prohibits entry of the requested injunction. The Court agrees.

23

The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits a “court of the United States” from granting “an

24

injunction to stay proceedings in a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The statute further provides

25

three limited exceptions to its prohibition: (1) where “expressly authorized by Act of

Page 2 of 4

1

Congress”; (2) “where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction”; or (3) “to protect or effectuate its

2

judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Furthermore, “[i]t is settled that the prohibition of § 2283

3

cannot be evaded by addressing the order to the parties or prohibiting utilization of the results

4

of a completed state proceeding.” Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. Of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398

5

U.S. 281, 287 (1970) (citing Okla. Packing Co. v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 309 U.S. 4, 9 (1940);

6

Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393, 403 (1935)).

7

Here, Plaintiff is requesting that this Court enjoin Defendants from acting in any way to

8

deprive or attempt to deprive Plaintiff from the real property that is the subject of this litigation.

9

However, granting the requested relief would require this Court to enjoin the Eviction Action

10

currently underway in the Justice Court. Thus, the requested relief is barred by the anti-

11

injunction statute’s prohibition against enjoining “proceedings in a State court” and the Court

12

must deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.2

13

III.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF

14
15

No. 69) is DENIED.

16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 71) is
hereby DISSOLVED.

18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Preliminary Injunction Hearing currently
scheduled for Friday, February 1, 2013 is hereby VACATED.

20
21

CONCLUSION

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file copies of the following orders
in the docket of the Eviction Action, or in the docket of any appeal thereof: (1) this Order;

22
23
24
25

Although the Court must deny Plaintiff’s request for an injunction of the state court eviction proceedings, it is
important to remember that the Court previously determined that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his
claim for Statutorily Defective Foreclosure under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 170.080. (Order Grant’g Ex Parte Mot. for
TRO, ECF No. 71.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim for statutorily defective foreclosure has survived the motion
to dismiss stage. (Order, ECF No. 77.) If Plaintiff were to succeed on the merits of this cause of action, the sale
of the real property in dispute would be voided and the subject state eviction proceedings would likely be
nullified.
2

Page 3 of 4

1

(2) the Court’s Order granting the Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 71); and (3) the

2

Court’s Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.

3

77).

4

DATED this 31st day of January, 2013.

5
6
7
8

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 4 of 4