Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08100/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08100-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY RICHARDS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED DOMINION REALTY TRUST, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-08100-SI 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 2

On December 11, 2019, pro se plaintiffs Larry Richards and Fantasia Brown filed a 

complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause why a 

preliminary injunction not issue against (1) United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. d/b/a UDR Towers 

By The Bay, LLC, (2) Dr. Benjamin Solomon Carson Sr. in his capacity as Secretary of the United 

States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), (3) Wayne Sauseda, in his 

capacity as HUD Deputy Regional Administrator, (4) Barbara Smith, in her capacity as Acting 

Executive Director of the San Francisco Housing Authority, (5) Sarah Ramler, in her capacity as 

Director of Leased Housing, (6) San Francisco Mayor London Breed in her official capacity, and 

(7) various other individual defendants. Dkt. Nos. 1 (“Complaint”) and 2 (“TRO App”). In their

request for a TRO, plaintiffs ask that “this Honorable Court take immediate jurisdiction over San 

Francisco Superior Court case number CUD-18-662405,” a pending unlawful detainer action. TRO

App at 1.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without jurisdiction. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have original 

jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

Case 3:19-cv-08100-SI Document 8 Filed 12/12/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the 

sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens of different states,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Both Mr. Richards and Ms. Brown reside in San Francisco, California and do not assert 

diversity jurisdiction. Complaint at 32. Rather, plaintiffs assert jurisdiction is proper “pursuant to 

§§ 1343(3) and 1331 and 2201, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(e), and 5 U.S.C. § 7[.]” Id. In their ex parte 

motion, plaintiffs request this Court take jurisdiction of San Francisco Court Case CUD-18-662405, 

an unlawful detainer action. TRO App at 10. However, the United States Code sections plaintiffs 

cite do not confer federal question subject matter jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions – nor 

is the Court aware of any independent basis for jurisdiction over this matter. As such, this Court 

cannot grant plaintiffs’ requested relief and therefore DENIES the ex parte motion and application

for a temporary restraining order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08100-SI Document 8 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 2