Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01893/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01893-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

T.C.E.F., INC., a California 

corporation, dba ALL GREEN 

COLLECTIVE; TONY F. MONASSAR; 

JABE T. SATTERFIELD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, a political 

subdivision of the State of 

California; and GREG FENTON, 

Kern County Building 

Official, on behalf of 

themselves and in the name of 

the People of the State of 

California; and DOES 1 

through 10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-CV-01893-GEB-JLT 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

On December 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte

application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in which 

they seek to have this federal court “stay a preliminary 

injunction order” issued by the Superior Court of the State of 

California in Kern County (“the County”) on November 26, 2014.

(Pls.’ Ex Parte App. for TRO, 2:8-9, ECF No. 5). Plaintiffs 

Monsasar and Sattterfield own Plaintiff T.C.E.F., Inc., a medical 

marijuana dispensary located in the County. The state court 

preliminary injunction order prevents Plaintiffs from operating 

their dispensary. (Labbad Decl. Ex. B (“Order Granting Prelim. 

Inj.”), ECF No. 5-1.) 

Case 1:14-cv-01893-GEB-BAM Document 8 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 3
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

2

On December 1, 2014, Plaintiffs commenced this federal 

action by filing a Complaint against the County and other 

defendants seeking damages for alleged violations of federal and 

state constitutional rights and an injunction staying the 

preliminary injunction issued by the state court on November 26, 

2014. Plaintiffs filed their TRO application eight days later on 

December 9, 2014. 

Plaintiffs’ TRO application disregards the Anti–

Injunction Act, which prescribes: “[a] court of the United States 

may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court 

except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where 

necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate 

its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Section 2283 “is an absolute 

prohibition against any injunction of any state-court 

proceeding[], unless the injunction falls within one of the three 

specifically defined exceptions in the Act.” Vendo Co. v. LektroVend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 630 (1977). “The limitations expressed 

in the Anti-Injunction Act rest[] on the fundamental 

constitutional independence of the States and their courts, and 

reflect Congress’ considered judgment as to how to balance the 

tensions inherent in such a system.” Sandpiper Vill. Condo.

Ass’n, Inc. v. La.-Pac. Corp., 428 F.3d 831, 842 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(citations omitted, alterations in original). 

Because of the Act's constitutional 

foundation, its three exceptions are to be 

applied narrowly, and “[a]ny doubts as to the 

propriety of a federal injunction against 

state court proceedings should be resolved in 

favor of permitting the state courts to 

proceed in an orderly fashion to finally 

determine the controversy. The explicit 

wording of § 2283 itself implies as much, and 

Case 1:14-cv-01893-GEB-BAM Document 8 Filed 12/10/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

the fundamental principle of a dual system of 

courts leads inevitably to that conclusion.”

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court for State of Cal., 326 F.3d 

816, 824 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd.

of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 297 (1970)); see also Negrete 

v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 523 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th Cir. 

2008) (“The authority conferred upon federal courts by the All 

Writs Act is restricted by the Anti–Injunction Act, which is 

designed to preclude unseemly interference with state court 

proceedings.”).

Plaintiffs have not shown any exception in the AntiInjunction Act applies to their TRO application; therefore, it is 

DENIED. 

Dated: December 10, 2014

Case 1:14-cv-01893-GEB-BAM Document 8 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 3