Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01357/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01357-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Daniel Amador,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

Quicken Loans, Inc. et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 16-1357-SMM

AMENDED ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) 

and Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (Doc. 8). Plaintiff says he 

will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if Defendants are not enjoined from 

proceeding with foreclosure on his property. (Doc. 7 at 5, Doc. 8 at 5.) Plaintiff has not 

notified Defendants of these motions. 

 On November 10, 2016, Defendant DVP, LP obtained a lawful writ of possession 

against Plaintiff in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. (Doc. 7 at 79-80, 

Doc. 8 at 80-81.) Pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), this Court will 

abstain from granting injunctive relief when a state civil proceeding is pending against 

the Plaintiff at the time he commences the federal action. It is apparent Plaintiff wishes 

the Court to forestall the foreclosure action, which this Court will not do. 

AMENDMENT 

In its original Order denying the TRO, the Court erred by stating another reason 

for denial, stating that to grant the TRO would prejudice the Defendants because Plaintiff 

had not yet served Defendants. The Court wishes to correct the record and state that it 

Case 1:16-cv-01357-SMM Document 10 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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

was not Plaintiff’s fault that Defendants had not yet been served. Indeed, pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), the Plaintiff must await a Court Order directing the Clerk of Court to 

issue summons for each Defendant. 

Notwithstanding the Court’s error, the Court’s analysis under Younger remains 

unchanged, as does its denial of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining 

Order. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order (Doc. 8). 

Dated this 30th day of November, 2016.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:16-cv-01357-SMM Document 10 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 2