Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01068/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01068-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

POLLARD & WHEELER PROPERTIES, 

LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RONALD E. CEARLEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1068 TLN AC (PS) 

ORDER AND FINDINGS & 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On May 26, 2015, the undersigned recommended that this removed action be remanded to 

the San Joaquin County Superior Court, for lack of federal jurisdiction. ECF No. 4. Defendant 

has now filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in which he asks this court to “over rule” 

or “rescind” the judgment entered by the “(Lower Court) State of California Superior Court San 

Joaquin County Manteca case: 39-003244690-CL-UD-MAN.” ECF No. 5. 

 This court cannot grant the emergency relief requested for two basic reasons. First, this 

court lacks jurisdiction over this action, as explained in the Findings and Recommendations. In 

the absence of federal jurisdiction, this court lacks the authority to grant injunctive relief. See 

Amerco v. NLRB, 458 F.3d 883, 884 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's order 

dismissing the Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction based on lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction); Camillos v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 2011 WL 5122619 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“In 

Case 2:15-cv-01068-TLN-AC Document 7 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

the absence of a complaint setting out the basis for jurisdiction, the court lacks the jurisdiction to 

grant a temporary restraining order”). Second, this court has no authority to overrule the state 

court’s decision. See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2011) (clarifying that the rule 

prohibiting federal court review of state judgments applies to “‘cases brought by state-court losers 

. . . inviting district court review and rejection of [the state court's] judgments’”) (citing Rooker v. 

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 

460 U.S. 462 (1983)). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s request for a temporary 

restraining order (ECF No. 5) be DENIED. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Because of the 

emergency nature of the relief sought – defendant alleges that he will be evicted on June 10, 2015 

– any party’s written objections to these findings and recommendations shall be filed with the 

court and served on all parties no later than June 9, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Such a document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response 

to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all parties no later than June 9, 2015 

at 4:30 p.m. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 

951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 The Clerk is directed to deliver a courtesy copy of this Order and Findings and 

Recommendations to plaintiff at the fax number specified on the docket. 

DATED: June 9, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01068-TLN-AC Document 7 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 2