Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00110/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00110-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1446fr Notice of Removal - Fraud

---

1 

18cv110-MMA (BGS) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EARNEST A. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et 

al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 18cv110-MMA (BGS) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

[Doc. No. 24] 

 On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff Earnest A. Davis, proceeding pro se, filed this 

breach of contract action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 

against multiple defendants, including Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Chase Bank, Selene 

Finance LP, and Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB. See Doc. No. 1-2. Nationstar 

answered Plaintiff’s complaint in state court. See Doc. No. 18-1. Chase Bank removed 

the action to this Court. See Doc. No. 1. Chase Bank, Selene Finance, and Wilmington 

Savings moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. Nos. 9, 12. The Court granted Defendants’ motions. 

See Doc. No. 21. Plaintiff now moves the Court to temporarily restrain and permanently 

enjoin Selene Finance from proceeding with a non-judicial foreclosure sale of his 

Case 3:18-cv-00110-MMA-BGS Document 35 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv110-MMA (BGS) 

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

residential property. See Doc. No. 24. Plaintiff further requests that the Court reconsider 

its order dismissing Selene Finance as a party to this action, and reaffirm the temporary 

restraining order previously issued by the state court prior to removal. Nationstar, the 

sole remaining defendant in this action, has filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. See 

Doc. No. 30. Nationstar argues that it currently holds no interest in the subject property, 

does not service Plaintiff’s loan, and therefore is unable to provide Plaintiff with the 

relief he requests. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

DISCUSSION

 Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, 

never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 

(2008). A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief “must establish that he is likely to succeed 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.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear 

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 

Here, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on his remaining 

claims against Nationstar. More importantly, however, “[a] federal court may [only] 

issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 

jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 

before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service, 753 

F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). In other words, the Court’s injunction can bind only those 

persons over which the Court has power. See id. A review of the record demonstrates 

that Selene Finance is the current servicer of Plaintiff’s mortgage account. As noted 

above, the Court dismissed this action as to Selene Finance, and therefore no longer has 

personal jurisdiction over Selene Finance. The Court does not have the authority to 

enjoin a party over whom it lacks jurisdiction, and Nationstar, as the former loan servicer, 

Case 3:18-cv-00110-MMA-BGS Document 35 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv110-MMA (BGS) 

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

is not in a position to halt or otherwise alter non-judicial foreclosure proceedings as to the 

subject property. 

To the extent Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of Selene 

Finance from this litigation, the Court declines to do so.1

 A motion for reconsideration 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “may be granted if ‘(1) the district 

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear 

error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening 

change in controlling law.’” Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Court 

has reviewed its previous Order dismissing Selene Finance from this action, and finds no 

error. Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, nor has there been an 

intervening change in the applicable law. As such, reconsideration is inappropriate. 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion in all respects. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: July 5, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

                                               

1

 Plaintiff states that he failed to oppose Selene Finance’s motion to dismiss due to a death in the family, 

and the resulting need to travel. The Court appreciates the difficulties inherent in managing civil 

litigation without the assistance of counsel. Nevertheless, pro se status does not excuse a litigant from 

full participation in litigation, and it is not grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s order of dismissal. 

Like all litigants, pro se litigants are bound by and expected to comply with the local rules of this 

District and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Civ. L.R. 83.11.a (stating that persons appearing 

pro se are “bound by these rules of court and by the Fed. R. Civ. P.,” and that failure to comply “may be 

ground for dismissal”). 

Case 3:18-cv-00110-MMA-BGS Document 35 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3