Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00697/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00697-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

CATHERINE BRYAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv697-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Catherine Bryan submitted an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining

order (TRO), with attached exhibits. By discrepancy order, the Court accepted the motion.

The motion makes clear Bryan is not seeking a preliminary injunction. (TRO

Application at 2:16–21.) Instead, she asks for a TRO so that she will have time to obtain 1

enough discovery to seek a preliminary injunction.

In an earlier case, Kokopelli Community Workshop Corp. v. Select Portfolio Servicing,

Inc., 10cv1605-CAB (KSC), Bryan litigated ownership of the property and lost. She then took

an appeal, which the Ninth Circuit has yet to resolve. The Court has no jurisdiction to make 2

The motion is divided into an “Application for TRO and Order to Show Cause” and 1

a memorandum in support of the application.

That case, 13-56681, Bryan v. Select Portfolio Servicing, was opened on September 2

26, 2013. The latest docket entry, dated May 5, 2017, is a letter sent to defense counsel in

response to his inquiry about the case status. The letter says the case is due to be assigned

- 1 - 17cv697

Case 3:17-cv-00697-LAB-BLM Document 13 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

any rulings on issues that are on appeal in that case; only the Ninth Circuit can do that. See

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).

The complaint in this case alleges that the City of Carlsbad and its code officer Scot

Rudinger have been using municipal property codes as a pretext to harass and oppress her. 

It alleges that Defendant’s agents have illegally intruded on her property and singled her out

for arbitrary enforcement of property regulations. The buyer(s) and purported new owner(s)

of the property are not named as Defendants in this case.

As a result of litigation in state court, the house is scheduled to be demolished this

month. (Memorandum at 15:17–16:4.) Bryan asks the Court to “enjoin [Defendants] from

condemning and demolishing her home . . .” after her failure to make mandated repairs. 

(Memorandum at 20:17–19.) She believes that if her house is demolished, she will lose

theequity she says she still has in her home. (Id. at 3:10–15.) Bryan believes the state court

proceeding was carried out in a manner that violates her federal due process rights. (Id. at

16:1–17:11.)

The motion is really raising two groups of claims. First, Bryan argues that the state

court violated her constitutional rights when it authorized an inspection warrant and later

adjudicated the city’s claim for condemnation and demolition of the house. Those

arguments are based on matters at issue in this case. Second, she claims that she will be

harmed because of her ownership in the house. She contends the demolition will extinguish

her Truth in Lending Act (TILA) based rights to the $2 million in equity she has in the

property. Those arguments are based on matters at issue in the case on appeal.

The Anti-injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, generally prevents this Court from enjoining

state court proceedings. The only exception to that prohibition that might apply here is that

a court can grant injunctions in support of its jurisdiction. But this Court lacks jurisdiction 3

to a panel of judges within the next few months.

The other exceptions are where an act of Congress expressly authorizes the 3

injunction (which is not the case here), and where an injunction is necessary to protect or

effectuate the Court’s judgments. But because the Court has not issued any judgments in

this case, that exception is not applicable either.

- 2 - 17cv697

Case 3:17-cv-00697-LAB-BLM Document 13 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

over the issue of ownership, TILA rights, and related issues that are on appeal. Currently,

the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over those issues, and only that court could enjoin state

proceedings that might impinge on Bryan’s claims in case 10cv1605. As for the claims at

issue in this case, there is no applicable exception to the Anti-injunction Act. The

condemnation and demolition of the house do not threaten this Court’s jurisdiction over

claims pending in this case. Any irregularities in the state court’s proceedings can be

litigated in state court, either at the trial court level or on appeal, but they cannot be litigated

in this case.

The motion is defective in a number of other ways, but because the Court lacks

jurisdiction to grant the relief Bryan is asking for, this order does not address those issues.

The motion is DENIED, and the request for judicial notice is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 17cv697

Case 3:17-cv-00697-LAB-BLM Document 13 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3