Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06253/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06253-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

: JEFFREY-MERRITT : WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NBS DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06253-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER, 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND 

DECLARATORY RELIEF

[Re: ECF 8]

Plaintiff : Jeffrey-Merritt : Wilson, proceeding pro se, brings twelve causes of action 

against Defendants: (1) violation of civil rights; (2) negligence; (3) defamation; (4) “loss of 

confidence of neighbors”; (5) “credit damage”; (6) punitive damages; (7) intentional infliction of 

emotional distress; (8) loss of work; (9) loss of time and labor; (10) monetary loss; (11) 

“unreasonable/unwarranted attacks by Defendants[’] agents in concurrent proceedings”; and (12) 

slander. See generally Compl., ECF 1. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary 

restraining order (“TRO”), preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief. Mot. for TRO, ECF 8. 

Plaintiff seeks these forms of relief “to maintain the status quo.” Id. at 2. Specifically, he 

petitions the Court to prevent a jury trial from going forward in state court. See id. at 2 & Ex. 3 

(notice of jury trial in U.S. Bank Nation Ass’n v. Wilson, No. CL-16-00199 (San Benito Cty. 

Super. Ct.)). As “cause” for granting the emergency application, Wilson lists that the claims 

before the state court are “clearly and precisely void on their face,” and “federal laws were 

definitely violated.” Id. at 5. Wilson also urges the Court to void a state court judgment in a 

separate case. See id. at 3 (identifying case as No. CU-11-00119)). For the reasons discussed 

Case 5:16-cv-06253-BLF Document 9 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

The substantive standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the 

standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush 

& Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft, 

887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is 

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

entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). 

A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public 

interest.” Id. at 20. Alternatively, an injunction can issue where “the likelihood of success is such 

that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in 

plaintiff’s favor,” provided that the plaintiff can also demonstrate the other Winter factors. All. for 

the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). Under either standard, the plaintiff bears the burden of making a clear showing 

on these elements and on entitlement to this extraordinary remedy. Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 

626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Without 

more, his speculation that he is “most likely to prevail” is inadequate. Mot. for TRO 3. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s federal claims suffer fatal deficiencies. Wilson’s first cause of action for 

violation of his civil rights and his fifth cause of action, which the Court construes as an attempt to 

state a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, do not contain sufficient facts for the Court to 

determine whether Wilson is likely to succeed on the merits. Compl. ¶¶ 8–9, 16–17. None of 

Wilson’s remaining causes of action are based on federal law. Without a federal claim, this Court 

does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

1

 In the absence of a viable federal 

question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and address the remaining 

 

1

This Court does not have diversity jurisdiction because there is not complete diversity. See 

Compl. ¶¶ 1–5 (Plaintiff and Defendants are California residents).

Case 5:16-cv-06253-BLF Document 9 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claims. See Order Denying TRO, Cornerstone Health & Wellness v. Long Beach, No. 13-cv00777, ECF 13 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 4, 2013) (declining to address state law claims in support of 

TRO application in the absence of federal question jurisdiction); see also Carrasco v. HSBC Bank 

USA, N.A., No. 11-cv-2711, 2012 WL 646251, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2012) (denying 

application for temporary restraining order on the ground that the Court did not have subject 

matter jurisdiction over the case). Therefore, Wilson has not shown a likelihood of success on the 

merits, and the Court declines to address the remaining Winter factors. 

Moreover, even if Plaintiff were able to meet the requirements to issue a preliminary 

injunction or TRO, the Anti-Injunction Act would prevent this Court from intervening in the state 

court proceedings at issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The Act “is an absolute prohibition against 

enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of [the] three specifically 

defined exceptions.” Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs., 398 U.S. 281, 286 

(1970); Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. Victa, 936 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir. 1991). A federal 

court may enjoin state proceedings “only ‘as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where 

necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.’” Merle Norman 

Cosmetics, 936 F.2d at 468. The three exceptions are narrowly construed, and “doubts as to the 

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

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

Wilson has not identified any applicable exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, and the Court was 

unable to identify any.

2

 Accordingly, Wilson’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction is 

DENIED.

Wilson also requests “declaratory relief by public awareness that one can be victimized by 

fraud, by void judgments, by malicious movements and other type violations of the law.” Mot. for 

TRO 3. However, Wilson does not cite any authority that would allow the Court to grant his 

 

2 Although the Court finds no cases addressing forcible entry and forcible detainer actions, a 

number of district courts have found that a stay of pending unlawful detainer proceedings, which 

are similar to the allegations against Wilson in state court, do not fall into one of the exceptions 

listed in the Act. See, e.g., Iam v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. 12-4106, 2013 WL 56703 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

2, 2013); Carrasco v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 11-2711, 2012 WL 646251 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 

2012). 

Case 5:16-cv-06253-BLF Document 9 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for declaratory relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06253-BLF Document 9 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 4