Jones et al v. McCarthy & Holsthus LLP et al
ORDER: Denying Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 3 ; Denying Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 3 ; Denying Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 4 ; Denying Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 4 . Amended Complaint is due within 20 days from the date of this order. Signed on 2/6/2013 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (plb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
THERESA JONES and DANIEL
Case No. 6:13-cv-195-TC
OPINION AND ORDER
MCCARTHY & HOLSTHUS, LLP, et al.
AIKEN, Chief Judge:
On February 1, 2013 plaintiffs filed suit and sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin
a foreclosure and eviction. The basis of plaintiffs' claims is not entirely clear from the face of their
complaint or their application and motion for restraining order, though the court gleans that plaintiffs
accuse defendants generally of engaging in fraudulent and unlawful lending practices. Plaintiffs also
allege that defendants lacked standing and/or authority to foreclose on certain unidentified property.
- OPINION AND ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiffs request that this court "take jurisdiction of this matter and enter an Order
granting temporary and permanent injunctive relief expressly precluding and cancelling the eviction
for the reasons set forth herein." Motion to Restrain at 9.
However, plaintiffs do not provide sufficient facts or legal authority to support the relief they
seek. Plaintiffs appear to allege that assignments of beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust for the
property at issue were not recorded in compliance with Oregon law; however, plaintiffs do not
provide the Deed of Trust for the court's review or present evidence that the Deed of Trust was
transferred or assigned. Further, plaintiffs do not identifY the property at issue or indicate whether
they, as opposed to another party, obtained the loan for such property.
Even more problematic is the fact that plaintiffs apparently request federal court intervention
in a state court eviction proceeding. See Motion to Restrain at 8-10. Plaintiffs indicate that a hearing
was held on January 28,2013 in Douglas County, Oregon before a Circuit Court judge, and that the
hearing was continued on January 29, 2013 and possibly January 30. Plaintiffs allege that they were
denied their rights after defendants' counsel served certain documents on plaintiffs and presented
them to the presiding judge. Importantly, federal courts should not intervene in state court
proceedings involving issues of state law. See H. C. exrel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610,613 (9th
Cir. 2000); Kleenwell Biohazard Waste & General Ecology Consultants, Inc. v. Nelson, 48 F .3d 391,
393 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[F]ederal courts should abstain from intervening in pending state judicial
proceedings out of deference to the interests of comity and federalism."). Further, if plaintiffs
received an adverse decision or judgment in a state court proceeding, they cannot appeal a state court
decision to this court; they must seek review in the relevant state court of appeals. Rooker v. Fidelity
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
- OPINION AND ORDER
If plaintiffs believe the court misunderstands the nature of their claims or the state court
action described in their motion, plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint and set forth
adequate grounds for federal comi jurisdiction, as well as the facts and law that support their claim
for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Failure to do so will result in dismissal
of this action.
Accordingly, plaintiffs' Motion and Application for Restraining Order (docs. 3,4) are
DENIED. Within twenty (20) days from the date ofthis order, plaintiffs are ordered to amend their
complaint and set forth a short and plain statement of the facts and relevant law that enable this court
to assume jurisdiction of their claims. Plaintiffs are advised that failure to comply with the court's
order will result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this fi!}day of February, 2013.
United States District Judge
- OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?