Williams v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 33 Opposed EMERGENCY MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, and MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CARL WILLIAMS,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.

FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION as
TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED TRUST
FANNIE MAE GUARANTEED REMIC
PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES
REMIC TRUST 2007-73, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEM a/k/a MERS, DOES 1
THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, ANY
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF A
WRIT OF POSSESSION,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. G-13-0318

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending

before

Application

for

Emergency Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Request

for

Hearing

on

(Docket

Entry

the

Preliminary
No.

court

is

Plaintiff's

Injunction

33).

For

("Plaintiff's

the

reasons

Application")

explained

below,

Plaintiff's Application will be denied.
I.

Background

Plaintiff obtained a home equity loan in 2006. 1

"Plaintiff

entered into financial difficulties thereafter in 2009, and went

1Plaintiff's Application, Docket Entry No. 33, p. 5 ~ 15.
(Page citations are to the pagination imprinted at the top of the
page by the federal court's electronic filing system.)

into default on his payments." 2

On January I,

2013,

Plaintiff's

property was sold to Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie
Mae")

at a foreclosure sale. 3

Fannie Mae obtained a judgment of

eviction in June of 2013 and "a writ of possession has issued on
the judgment." 4
On June 25,
the

2013,

Plaintiff brought this action challenging

foreclosure

and making other claims

in the

149th Judicial

District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, where it was filed under
Cause No. 73176. 5

Defendants removed the action to this court. 6

On May 16, 2014, "the constable notified Plaintiff that Fannie
Mae had requested Plaintiff be evicted, and the constable plans to
evict Plaintiff on May 27, 2014."7
II.

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the
eviction.
A movant for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate
"(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,
(2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the
injunction will result in irreparable injury, (3) the

2Id.

~

16.

3Id. at 4

~

13; 6

~

19.

4Id. at 4 ~ 13.

5Plaintiff's Original Petition, Exhibit
Removal, Docket Entry No. 1-2, pp. 3-43.

B

to

Notice

6Notice of Removal, Docket Entry No.1.
7Plaintiff's Application, Docket Entry No. 33, p. 4 ~ 12.
-2 -

----

----------~---

of

threatened
injury outweighs any damage
that
injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4)
injunction will not disserve the public interest."
Reeves v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
Cir. 2011)
Cir.

431 F. App'x 304,

the
the
305

(5th

(quoting Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th
The

1991))

court

has

carefully

considered

Plaintiff's

Application together with the pleadings and evidence on file and
concludes that Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits.
Moreover,
Injunction Act,
relief.
416

(5th

this

court

28 U.S.C.

lacks

jurisdiction

under

the

Anti-

2283, to grant Plaintiff's requested

§

See Knoles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 513 F. App'x 414,
Cir.

2013)

i

Brinson

v.

Universal

No. G-13-463, 2014 WL 722398, at *2-3

Am.

Mortgage

Co.

I

(S.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2014);

Green v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. H-13-1092, 2013 WL 2417916, at *1
(S.D. Tex. June 4,

2013).

In Knoles the Fifth Circuit upheld a

district court's denial of a temporary restraining order that would
have

prevented

practical

an

effect,

eviction
would

because

enjoin

[the

"[t]he

relief

mortgage

sought,

company]

ln
from

enforcing a valid extant judgment of a Texas court," holding that
"[t]he district court is denied jurisdiction to grant that relief
by the Anti-Injunction Act."

513 F. App'x at 416.

Plaintiff acknowledges that Fannie Mae "obtained a judgment of
eviction against Plaintiff's property in Cause No.

CI 04 94 04 of

BRAZORIA County Court at Law No.1; on or about June 20, 2013," and

-3-

that

"[a]

writ

of

possession

has

issued

on

the

judgment.

liB

Plaintiff brought this action on June 25, 2013,9 after Fannie Mae
obtained the judgment of eviction.

Cf. Knoles,

415-16; Brinson, 2014 WL 722398, at *3.

513 F. App'x at

"To the extent that there

was a forcible detainer proceeding and an eviction order,

this

court lacks the ability to provide the requested relief [because]
\ [t]he Anti-Injunction Act generally prohibits federal courts from
interfering

with

proceedings

in

state

Green,

court.'"

2013

WL 241796, at *1 (quoting Health Net, Inc. v. Wooley, 534 F.3d 487,
493 (5th Cir. 2008)).
III.

Having

carefully

Conclusion and Order

considered

pleadings and evidence on file,
concludes

that

Plaintiff's

Application,

and the relevant law,

Plaintiff's Application

for

the

the court

Emergency Ex

Parte

Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Hearing on Preliminary
Injunction (Docket Entry No. 33) should be and is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 23rd day of May, 2014.

7
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BPlaintiff's Application, Docket Entry No. 33, p. 4 ~ 13.
9Plaintiff's Original Petition, Exhibit
Removal, Docket Entry No. 1-2, pp. 3-43.
-4-

"""------"-----

B

to

Notice

of