Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02441/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02441-3/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Adam C. Cytron, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PHH Mortgage Corporation, USAA Federal 

Savings Bank, Jason P Sherman, Kari 

Sheehan, and Daniel C Schmidt, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-02441-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff Adam C. Cytron has filed an ex parte motion asking the Court to relieve 

him of a forcible entry and detained judgment entered in Pinal County Superior Court. 

Doc. 45. Plaintiff argues that he was not properly served in the state action, and that the 

state court therefore lacked authority to enter judgment against him. He also makes other 

allegations regarding the manner in which the plaintiff’s attorney and the judge behaved 

in the state case. Id. For several reasons, the motion will be denied. 

 First, Plaintiff states that Pinal County Superior Court “is the Defendant” for 

purposes of his motion, but that court is not a defendant in this case. Other than Plaintiff, 

the parties in the state court action are not parties here, and the Court has no jurisdiction 

over them. 

 Second, the motion is based on Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 1. Rule 60, however, concerns judgments entered in this Court, not in other courts. 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 47 Filed 01/05/17 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 

 Third, even if the Court did have jurisdiction over the party Plaintiff seeks to 

enjoin, and did have a legal basis for acting, federal courts normally cannot interfere with 

state court proceedings. See Lizalek v. Milwaukee Cty., No. 12-C-1005, 2012 WL 

4759230, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 4, 2012) (Anti-injunction Act bars federal court from 

stopping state court eviction proceeding). 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion (Doc. 45) is denied. 

 Dated this 5th day of January, 2017. 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 47 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2