US Bank, National Association v. Cross et al

Filing 3

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle DENYING 2 Motion for TRO and ordering Defendants to show cause by 8/16/2010 why this action should not remanded to state court.(TG; cc mailed to defendants)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Although Lela Cross and Kristi Duke list themselves as the plaintiffs in this action, when a state court action is removed to this Court, the designation of the parties remains unchanged. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Therefore, the Court will refer to Lela Cross and Kristi Duke as Defendants and to U.S. Bank, National Association as Plaintiff.
ORDER - 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee for the C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-CB3, Plaintiff, v. LELA CROSS, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. C10-5539BHS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Lela Cross and Kristi Duke's1 motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein. Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs temporary restraining orders. The rule also requires the moving party to submit "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Here, the Court finds that Defendants, in their notice of removal of the state court unlawful detainer action, have failed to show how this Court has proper jurisdiction over

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

this action. Although Defendants apparently attempt to invoke both the Court's original and diversity jurisdiction, the facts pled by Defendants fail to support these jurisdictional allegations. Defendants cite to Plaintiff's violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(b), a criminal statute, in support of their claim that the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants do not have standing to bring an action against Plaintiff for alleged violations of the United States Criminal Code. In addition, Defendants state that the parties are diverse and thus the Court has diversity jurisdiction. However, Defendants name several parties that appear to be residents of the State of Washington, for jurisdictional purposes, as are Defendants themselves. See Dkt. 1. Therefore, it appears that the parties lack diversity of citizenship, Defendants have failed to allege an amount in controversy, and therefore, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, Defendants have failed to submit evidence of an immediate and irreparable injury that would be relieved by a temporary restraining order, as this Court apparently lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order. Moreover, the Court notes that even if the Court's jurisdiction is proper, Defendants have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or that an irreparable injury will occur absent the Court's issuing of the temporary restraining order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (stating the requirements a party must show in order for a court to issue a temporary restraining order). Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Defendants' motion is DENIED and Defendants are ORDERED to show cause, in the form of a brief to be filed on or before August 16, 2010, why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. DATED this 4th day of August, 2010.

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

ORDER - 2