Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02662/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02662-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 This action was removed by defendants Wachovia Mortgage, FSB and Golden

West Savings Association Service Company (“defendants”). 

09cv2662

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD WAYNE FRY and

CHARLOTTE ANN FRY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv2662 L(NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [doc. #26]

A. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ pro se complaint1

 lists causes of action for breach of contract; “consumer fraud

act”; TILA; RESPA; conversion; intentional infliction of emotional distress; fraud; and

California Commercial Code § 93101. The allegations are based upon a loan transaction that

refinanced their house. 

Because of plaintiffs’ default on the loan, the property was sold at a nonjudicial

foreclosure sale. Currently pending in the California Superior Court is an unlawful detainer

action with respect to plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs contend the unlawful detainer action in the

state court was wrongfully instituted and as a result, this Court should enjoin the state court from

removing plaintiffs from their foreclosed-upon property. The state court and the federal court

Case 3:09-cv-02662-L-NLS Document 37 Filed 03/26/10 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 Currently pending before the Court are defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’

complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiffs’ motion to remand and motion to amend the complaint. 

These motions will be addressed in separate orders.

2 09cv2662

cases are independent actions seeking different relief. The federal action is based on alleged

irregularities in the securing and servicing of the loan on the property; the state court action

concerns the nonjudicial foreclosure of the property and an unlawful detainer. 

The present motion for an order to show cause requests that this Court enjoin the

unlawful detainer action which would allow plaintiffs to remain in the property notwithstanding

the nonjudicial foreclosure sale that has occurred. Defendants oppose the motion on the basis

that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a right to an injunction; have failed to allege and make a

tender of the outstanding indebtedness; and an injunction would violate the rights of a third-party

without notice and an opportunity for hearing. 

B. DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard for an Injunction 

The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate

“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.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to show any likelihood of success on the

merits. At this point the Court does not determine whether plaintiffs have stated claims under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)2

 but whether plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are

likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. 

A review of plaintiffs’ complaint and their proposed amended complaint leaves the Court

with the firm conviction that plaintiffs have little or no likelihood of success on the merits with

respect to any of their allegations. Plaintiffs’ complaint is a jumble of miscellaneous and

incongruous theories and arguments based on plaintiffs’ beliefs that are not supported by facts or

law. 

Further, it is certainly not in the public interest to enjoin a state court foreclosure action

Case 3:09-cv-02662-L-NLS Document 37 Filed 03/26/10 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 09cv2662

based on claims that are time-barred, incomprehensible and/or meritless.

2. Anti-Injunction Act

The Court also concludes that the relief plaintiffs seek in their motion for an order to

show cause violates the Anti-Injunction Act.

The Anti-Injunction action forbids a federal court from enjoining or staying state court

proceedings “except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its

jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The exceptions to the

Anti-Injunction Act are narrowly construed and “doubts as to the propriety of a federal

injunction against a state court proceeding should be resolved in favor of permitting the state

action to proceed.” Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). The exception does not

apply unless injunctive relief is “necessary to prevent a state court from so interfering with a

federal court's consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the federal court's

flexibility and authority to decide that case.” Atlantic Coastline R.R., 398 U.S. at 295.

Plaintiffs have not identified any exception to the Anti-Injunction Act that is applicable to

this case. There is no federal statute authorizing a district court to enjoin a state unlawful

detainer action. Additionally, there are no prior orders of this court that would be undermined

by the unlawful detainer hearing. Finally, an injunction against the unlawful detainer action is

not necessary to aid this court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has explained that this

exception exists to protect a court's in rem jurisdiction. Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433

U.S. 623, 641 (1977) (“[T]he necessary in aid of exception to § 2283 may be fairly read as

incorporating this historical in rem exception.”). Here, the court does not have in rem

jurisdiction over the real property at issue.

Accordingly, under the Anti-Injunction Act, the Court cannot enter the restraining order

sought by plaintiffs.

3. Younger Abstention

Plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief also is precluded by the Younger abstention doctrine. 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971). Younger abstention is proper where (1)

there are ongoing state judicial proceedings, (2) that implicate important state interests, and (3)

Case 3:09-cv-02662-L-NLS Document 37 Filed 03/26/10 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 09cv2662

there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal questions. Middlesex

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Confederated Salish

v. Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1994). The “policy objective behind Younger

abstention is to avoid unnecessary conflict between state and federal governments.” United

States v. Morros, 268 F.3d 695, 707 (9th Cir. 2001). Younger permits state courts to try state

cases free from interference by federal courts and generally directs federal courts to abstain from

granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere with pending state judicial

proceedings.” Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on

other grounds, Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief would interfere with an underlying state court

proceeding that implicates an important state interest – real property rights and obligations. The

unlawful detainer action provides plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to address issues raised in

their papers seeking injunctive relief. This Court therefore is not in a position to interfere with

ongoing state court proceedings.

C. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 26, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL/PARTIES

Case 3:09-cv-02662-L-NLS Document 37 Filed 03/26/10 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 09cv2662

Case 3:09-cv-02662-L-NLS Document 37 Filed 03/26/10 Page 5 of 5