Williams et al v. National Default Servicing Corporation et al

Filing 52

ORDER Denying 48 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/27/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

RONALD WILLIAMS, JANN WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORP. )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

10
11
12
13
14

17
18
19

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 48) filed by
pro se Plaintiffs Ronald and Jann Williams (“Plaintiffs”)1 against Defendants National Default
Servicing Corporation, Duke Partners II, LLC, Michael A Bosco, Wendy Van Luven, and
Carmen Navejas (collectively, “Defendants”).
I.

15
16

Case No.: 2:16-cv-1860-GMN-NJK

BACKGROUND
This action arises out of the foreclosure sale of real property located at 258 Bonnie

Claire Court, Henderson, Nevada 89074 (the “Property”). (Compl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 1).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following three causes of action: (1) “False Representation
concerning Title and Fraudulent Foreclosure,”; (2) Quiet Title; and (3) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress. (Id. ¶¶ 18–31).2 Concurrent with this case, the parties also have an

20
21
22
23
24
25

1

In light of Plaintiffs’ status as pro se litigants, the Court has liberally construed their filings, holding them to
standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).
2
It appears that Plaintiffs may believe that they have also removed the Unlawful Detainer Action from Justice
Court to this Court. (See Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 5:21–25, ECF No. 48) (“The arrogant disregard of the judicial
process is manifested by the effort to resolve the unlawful detainer matter before the Justice Court, while, at the
same time, the motions to do the same thing are pending before this Court.”); (see also Not. re: County Court
action, ECF No. 5). If so, then such a belief is mistaken. Proper removal requires the filing of a Petition for

Page 1 of 4

1

Unlawful Detainer Action pending in Justice Court. (Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 9:7–13, ECF

2

No. 48). Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction includes an exhibit entitled Notice of

3

Continued Hearing regarding an “Order to Show Cause Why a Temporary Writ of Restitution

4

Should Not Be Granted” set for November 9, 2016, in Las Vegas Justice Court. (Ex. 1 to Pls.’

5

Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 13). In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue an order

6

“enjoining jurisdiction of the Justice Court on the Case brought by the defendant for unlawful

7

detainer . . . including vacating the hearing on the Order to Show Case [sic] set for November

8

9, 2016.” (Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 9:7–13).

9

II.

10

LEGAL STANDARD
Preliminary injunction orders are governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

11

Procedure, which provides that a “court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to

12

the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1).

13

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed

14

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

15

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

16

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Injunctive relief is “an

17

extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is

18

entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. “[C]ourts must balance the competing claims of injury and

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Removal in the United States District Court, not merely a notice in a different case that is already proceeding in
the United States District Court.
Further, it is likely that even if Plaintiffs followed the proper procedure for removal of the Unlawful
Detainer Action, subject matter jurisdiction would not be met. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,
possessing only those powers granted by the Constitution and by statute. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d
799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008). For this reason, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Among other cases, the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction of civil actions where there is diversity of citizenship
between the parties and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Here, the Unlawful Detainer Action would not likely meet the amount in controversy requirement of
$75,000. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Wasiak, Case No. 2:11-cv-1380-ECR-CWH, 2012 WL 1231924, at *1 (D. Nev.
Apr. 12, 2012). Accordingly, the Court will consider only the claims alleged in the Complaint (ECF No. 1).

Page 2 of 4

1

must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.”

2

Id. at 24 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction,

3

the district court ‘is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed

4

questions of fact.’” Int’l Molders’ & Allied Workers’ Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d

5

547, 551 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Dymo Indus., Inc. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th

6

Cir. 1964)).

7

“The urgency of obtaining a preliminary injunction necessitates a prompt determination

8

and makes it difficult to obtain affidavits from persons who would be competent to testify at

9

trial.” Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984). “The trial court

10

may give even inadmissible evidence some weight, when to do so serves the purpose of

11

preventing irreparable harm before trial.” Id.

12

III.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

judgments.” Id. Furthermore, “[i]t is settled that the prohibition of § 2283 cannot be evaded by

18

addressing the order to the parties or prohibiting utilization of the results of a completed state

19

proceeding.” Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970).

20

The exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act are narrowly construed and “doubts as to the

21

propriety of a federal injunction against a state court proceeding should be resolved in favor of

22

permitting the state action to proceed.” Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987).

23

“The general rule under the ‘necessary in aid of its jurisdiction’ exception is that where state

24

and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a case, neither court may prevent the

25

parties from simultaneously pursuing claims in both courts.” Id. at 740. The exception does not

Page 3 of 4

1

apply unless injunctive relief is “necessary to prevent a state court from so interfering with a

2

federal court’s consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the federal court’s

3

flexibility and authority to decide that case.” Atl. Coast Line R. Co., 398 U.S. at 295. “The

4

mere existence of a parallel action in state court does not rise to the level of interference with

5

federal jurisdiction necessary to permit injunctive relief under . . . [an] exception.” Lou, 834

6

F.2d at 740.

7

Here, Plaintiffs specifically seek to enjoin the Unlawful Detainer Action currently

8

underway in the Las Vegas Justice Court. Thus, the requested relief is barred by the Anti-

9

Injunction Act’s prohibition against enjoining “proceedings in State court.” The Court does not

10

find any exception to the Anti-Injunction Act that is applicable to this case. Accordingly, the

11

Court must deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

12

IV.

13
14
15

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion Preliminary Injunction (ECF

No. 48) is DENIED.
27
DATED this ____ day of October, 2016.

16
17
18

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 4 of 4