Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01594/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01594-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-01594-EJD

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REMANDING CASE 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PETRA MARTINEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 5:19-cv-01594-EJD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

EMERGENCY EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

REMANDING CASE TO STATE 

COURT 

Re: Dkt. No. 10 

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ emergency ex parte application for a temporary 

restraining order and order to show cause. For the reasons stated below the Court denies the 

application and remands the case to the state court. 

This matter comes before this Court on Defendants’ Notice of Removal from the Superior 

Court for Monterey County. Dkt. 1 at 13-15.1

 The underlying action is Plaintiff’s unlawful 

detainer action against Defendants. Id. at 15. Plaintiff alleges that it owns a property that 

Defendants have occupied, without Plaintiff’s consent, since a foreclosure sale of the property. Id. 

at 13-14. The Notice of Removal asserts that Defendants’ rights protected by the First, Fifth, 

Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments have been infringed and impaired in the state court 

action. Id. at 1-2. Defendants also assert that the underlying action is diverse. Id. at 2. 

Defendants, who are proceeding pro se, seek a temporary restraining order prohibiting Plaintiff 

and other entities from attempting to sell the property in question. Dkt. 10 at 10. 

To obtain a temporary restraining order, a party “must establish that he is likely to succeed 

 

1

 Pincites refer to the ECF-added page numbers. 

Case 5:19-cv-01594-EJD Document 11 Filed 05/01/19 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01594-EJD

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REMANDING CASE 

 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 Californi

a

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Henry 

Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Am. Trucking 

Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2009)). A temporary 

restraining order is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that 

the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. (quoting Winter v. Nat. Resources Defense Council, 555 

U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). Where, as here, the application is made ex parte, the moving party must show 

“‘that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the 

adverse party can be heard in opposition’ and certification of ‘efforts made to give notice and the 

reasons why it should not be required.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). “Further, ‘[a] 

federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.’” Hussain v. Ponce, 2019 WL 1055235, at *1 (C.D. 

Cal. Jan. 8, 2019) (quoting Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) and denying 

application for temporary restraining order). 

The Court first considers whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The 

Ninth Circuit has held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction when a case has been 

improperly removed. ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality of 

Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, Defendants removed their case under 28 

U.S.C. § 1443. Dkt. 1 at 1. Removal under § 1443 requires the removing party to satisfy a twopart test. First, they must assert “as a defense . . . rights that are given to them by explicit statutory 

enactment protecting equal racial civil rights” and, second, they “must assert that the state courts 

will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or a 

constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.” 

Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Defendants cannot meet the first prong. They assert that they belong to a discrete class of 

individuals that are in wrongful eviction actions and are discriminated against by “the attorneys” 

and “Judges of the Superior Courts of California.” Dkt. 1 at 6. They also assert that their rights 

Case 5:19-cv-01594-EJD Document 11 Filed 05/01/19 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-01594-EJD

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REMANDING CASE 

 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 Californi

a

protected by the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated. 

But, neither the Notice of Removal nor their Answer makes any reference to rights that are 

protected as equal racial civil rights by federal statutes, which required for removal under § 1443. 

Dkt. 1; Dkt. 1-3. Because Defendants cannot satisfy the first prong, the Court finds that removal 

was improper under § 1443. 

The Notice of Removal asserts “DIVERSITY exists in that the Plaintiff is a Delaware 

entity and the Defendants are California entities.” Dkt. 1 at 2. Federal law allows for removal 

where diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) would apply to the underlying state court 

action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Here, even assuming that the parties are diverse, removal would not be 

appropriate because Defendants make no attempt to show that the amount in controversy 

requirement has been met. Indeed, the complaint in underlying state court action states that it is 

for less than $10,000—far less than the $75,000 required for § 1332(a). Dkt. 1 at 13. 

Accordingly, removal is improper based on diversity jurisdiction. 

The Court concludes that this case was improperly removed from the Monterey County 

Superior Court. It therefore lacks jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order. Defendants 

application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. Where a court, “at any time before final 

judgment,” determines that it “lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 

U.S.C.A. § 1447(c); see also U.S. Bank, N.A. as Tr. for Certificate Holders of Banc of Am. 

Funding Corp. v. Lucore, 2018 WL 5832197, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018). The Court therefore 

REMANDS the case to the Monterey County Superior Court. The Clerk shall provide a copy of 

this order to the Superior Court and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 1, 2019 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:19-cv-01594-EJD Document 11 Filed 05/01/19 Page 3 of 3