Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02448/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02448-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL E. GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT (BUREAU) OF REAL 

ESTATE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2448 GEB GGH PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). 

Presently before the court are plaintiff’s “ex parte application for permission to conduct 

limited discovery due to extraordinary circumstances,” “ex parte application for a stay or 

temporary injunction on a pending state action,” and application to file memorandum in excess of 

25 page limit in support of application for preliminary injunction, all filed September 19, 2016. 

(ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17.) Plaintiff has not served any defendants with these filings; however, only 

two defendants have been served with process as of the date of this order. 

I. Request to Conduct Early Limited Discovery 

Plaintiff requests leave to conduct early discovery because a witness he seeks to depose by 

written questions, Robert Schaldach, has suffered a “traumatic fall” and his “condition is so 

Case 2:15-cv-02448-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 5
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

serious and fragile that if his written deposition is not taken forthwith, his testimony would not be 

available forever while awaiting trial or normal discovery.” Gonzalez Decl., ECF No. 15 at 8. 

This witness was the seller’s realtor during the transaction in which plaintiff was accused of 

improperly disposing of a deposit paid to him by his client, the purchaser, by distributing these 

proceeds to himself and Mr. Schaldach. Plaintiff has proffered no evidence other than his own 

declaration concerning Mr. Schaldach’s condition and inability to wait for regular discovery to 

commence. Furthermore, it is unclear why, with all of the past state court and administrative 

actions, there is no previous deposition transcript by Mr. Schaldach available to plaintiff. In any 

event, the court will consider plaintiff’s request if plaintiff files a declaration signed by Mr. 

Schaldach which testifies to his physical condition and limited future availability. Plaintiff shall 

also file his own declaration which attests to the lack of any deposition previously taken in any 

prior action, or that such deposition is inadequate for this action, and why. Once those 

declarations have been submitted, the undersigned will expeditiously consider plaintiff’s request 

for early discovery. Plaintiff shall serve every defendant who has been served with summons as 

of the date he files the above mentioned documents. 

II. Request for Injunctive Relief 

Plaintiff’s request for a stay of his state court action should be denied for two reasons. 

First, plaintiff has not met the procedural requirements which require notice to the adverse party. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1) requires that a preliminary injunction may issue “only on notice to 

the adverse party.” No notice to the adverse party is required for issuance of a temporary 

restraining order, but only if “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly 

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

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney 

certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” 

Id. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added). 

There is no proof of service for the application for injunctive relief, and it does not appear 

that it was served on any adverse party. Nor have most of the defendants been served with 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-02448-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 5
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

process in this case.1 Plaintiff has not certified in writing any efforts made to give notice to any 

party, or explained why such notice should not be required. Plaintiff has failed to meet the 

procedural requirements which would permit issuance of an injunction or temporary restraining 

order on plaintiff's application. 

Even if plaintiff’s application was not procedurally defective, it would be denied on the 

merits in any event. The Anti–Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, states that “[a] court of the 

United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly 

authorized by an Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or 

effectuate its judgments.” 

A federal court may intrude into a pending state proceeding “when 

absolutely necessary for protection of constitutional rights,” but 

only under “extraordinary circumstances, where the danger of 

irreparable loss is both great and immediate.” Younger v. Harris, 

401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Younger and its progeny are based on the 

interests of comity and federalism that counsel federal courts to 

maintain respect for state functions and not unduly interfere with 

the state's good faith efforts to enforce its own laws in its own 

courts. Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar 

Assoc., 457 U.S. 423, 431, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982); 

San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action 

Comm., 546 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2008). 

Phelon v. Hamman, 2010 WL 1223221, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2010). 

Although plaintiff claims that Sacramento County Superior Court is blocking discovery 

and refusing to set a trial date, and that his state court case is therefore in danger of being 

dismissed under California’s five year rule, these circumstances do not warrant interference by 

this federal court. As just set forth, the standard to obtain a stay of a state court action is not just 

irreparable injury as required for injunctive relief, but a showing of the existence of irremediable 

harm both ‘great and immediate.’“ Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court, 988 F.2d 252, 262–63 (1st 

Cir.1993) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971)). Plaintiff has failed 

to make such a showing. This court will not stay a state court case that plaintiff himself initiated, 

particularly without a proffer of evidence supporting plaintiff’s claims that the court is preventing 

 

1

 The docket reflects that only defendant Jones signed a waiver of service on September 29, 

2016. (ECF No. 18.) 

Case 2:15-cv-02448-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

his case from proceeding to trial, especially in light of plaintiff’s conceded representation that the 

Sacramento Court Superior Court’s decision was upheld on appeal by the Third District Court of 

Appeals. (ECF No. 16 at 3.) 

Plaintiff cites the Mitchum standard which he claims expressly authorizes an injunction of 

this sort. Mitchum v. Foster found that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “is an Act of Congress that falls within 

the ‘expressly authorized’ exception of the [Anti-Injunction Act].” + 407 U.S. 225, 243, 92 S.Ct. 

2151 (1972). The Mitchum Court's holding was much more narrow: “[t]oday we decide only that 

the District Court in this case was in error in holding that, because of the anti-injunction statute, it 

was absolutely without power in this § 1983 action to enjoin a proceeding pending in a state court 

under any circumstances whatsoever.” Id. In fact, the Mitchum Court reiterated that it did not 

“question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain 

a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding.” Id. The Supreme Court has since 

emphasized that the court’s authority to issue an injunction is a discretionary one: “[o]f course, 

the fact that an injunction may issue under the Anti–Injunction Act does not mean that it must 

issue.” Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 151, 108 S.Ct. 1684 (1988); see also 

14C Charles, Arthur R. Miller, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure, Jurisdiction § 4222 (3d ed.) 

(“[E]ven when the power exists to stay state court proceedings, the exercise of that power is 

discretionary, allowing the federal court to weigh all of the factors for and against issuing a 

stay.”). 

“Any 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.” Atl. Cost Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 

281, 297, 90 S.Ct. 1739 (1970). “The federal courts will not casually enjoin the conduct of 

pending state court proceedings.” Cousins v. Wigoda, 409 U.S. 1201, 1206, 92 S.Ct. 2610 

(1972). Plaintiff has failed to reach the high hurdle demonstrating that the extraordinary relief he 

requests is justified. His application should therefore be denied. 

As a result, plaintiff’s request for leave to file his memorandum in support of request for 

preliminary injunction in excess of the 25 page limit will be denied as unnecessary. 

Case 2:15-cv-02448-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 10/12/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Within seven days of this order, plaintiff shall file: (1) Mr. Schaldach’s declaration 

regarding his physical condition and why his deposition cannot wait until normal 

discovery is conducted; and (2) shall file his own declaration stating that there is no 

previously taken deposition of Mr. Schaldach that is available, or that such deposition 

is inadequate for this action, and why. Once these declarations are filed, and served 

on all defendants served with summons, the undersigned will expeditiously consider 

plaintiff’s request to conducted early limited discovery. 

2. Plaintiff’s application to file memorandum in excess of 25 page limit in support of 

application for preliminary injunction, filed September 19, 2016. (ECF No. 17), is 

denied. 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: Plaintiff’s “ex parte application for 

a stay or temporary injunction on a pending state action,” filed September 19, 2016, (ECF No. 

16), be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: October 11, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Gonzalez2448.fr-pi 

Case 2:15-cv-02448-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 10/12/16 Page 5 of 5