Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-03166/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-03166-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Case Number 5:10-CV-03166 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE AND APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 7/28/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANTHONY V. GUANCIONE, III, R. AUBREE’

GUANCIONE, AND WILLIAM BULLOCK

STEWART, III,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

WORLD SAVINGS INC, GOLDEN WEST

FINANCIAL CORPORATION, WELLS FARGO &

CO.,

 Defendants.

Case Number 5:10-CV-03166 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE

AND APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

Re: Docket Nos. 3, 12, 13, 14

I. BACKGROUND

On July 20, 2010, Plaintiffs Anthony V. Guancione, III, Rosalie Aubree! Guancione, and

William Bullock Stewart, III, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and application for a

temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Wachovia Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A., formerly known as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, also formerly known as World

Savings Bank, FSB and Golden West Savings Association Service Co., erroneously sued as

“Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, World Savings Inc., Golden West Financial Corporation,

Case 5:10-cv-03166-JF Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 7
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

 Wachovia makes several requests for judicial notice. The deed of trust is properly

1

incorporated by reference because the pleadings are deemed to include “documents whose

contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not

physically attached to the pleading.” See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994),

cert. denied, overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. City of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th

Cir. 2002). The remaining exhibits for which Wachovia requests judicial notice and the Court

relies upon in this order consist of public records that are “capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R.

Evid. 201(b). 

2

Case Number 5:10-CV-03166 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE AND APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

Wells Fargo & Co.” (collectively, “Wachovia”). Plaintiffs seek an order prohibiting Defendants,

or any of their:

[A]gents, servants, employees, aiders, abettors, persons acting in concert with 

specifically named parties, corporate affiliates, etc., even though they are not

parties to the action [], from (1) attempting to evict the Petitioner Trust WILLIAM

BULLOCK STEWART III©TM, and its beneficiary and lien holder WilliamBullock III: Stewart from the real property at 1461 Forrestal Ave., San Jose, CA

95110, during the pendency of this civil case for ownership determination, and an

order to show cause (1) why a preliminary injunction should not be granted

enjoining Plaintiff WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, its agents

servants, employees, aiders, abettors, persons acting in concert with specifically

named parties, corporate affiliates, etc., even though they are not parties to the

action [], from violating the automatic stay of bankruptcy and committing or

performing the above described act(s) during the pendency of this civil case for

ownership determination. 

TRO at 2. 

The instant action is not the first concerning the property at issue in this case. On August

24, 2006 Plaintiff Anthony Guancione received a home loan in the amount of $465,000.00 from

Wachovia’s predecessor, World Savings Bank, FSB. Wachovia’s Request for Judicial Notice

(“RJN”) Ex. E (Deed of Trust). After Anthony Guancione defaulted on his payments, Wachovia 1

initiated a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property. On May 15, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a

complaint in the Santa Clara Superior Court seeking to enjoin the non-judicial foreclosure. RJN,

Ex. G (Complaint). The state court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief and dismissed

the case. An appeal currently is pending in that action. 

On October 1, 2009, Plaintiff Rosalie Aubree Guancione filed an action (Case No.

5:09-CV-04684-JF) and an application for a TRO in this Court. On October 2, 2009, this Court

issued an order denying that application. RJN, Ex. K (concluding that Plaintiff was not likely to

Case 5:10-cv-03166-JF Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 7
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

Case Number 5:10-CV-03166 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE AND APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

succeed on her claim given that the complaint was “ninety-three (93) pages in length, much of

which [was] unintelligible. . .[and that] in its present form [did] not appear to allege a cognizable

federal claim.”). On October 22, 2009, the Court granted Rosalie Aubree Guancione’s motion to

dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). RJN Ex. L.

On November 12, 2009, Wachovia filed an unlawful detainer action in the Santa Clara

Superior Court, Case No.109-CV-157228. Plaintiffs subsequently purported to remove the

action to federal court based upon a document entitled “Negative Averment and Counterclaim.” 

RJN Ex. M. On February 2, 2010, this Court adopted the report and recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd and summarily remanded the action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. On June 17, 2010, the state court entered a judgment awarding Wachovia

possession of the concerned property, $1,471.00 in back rent, and $9,364.73 in holdover

damages. RJN, Ex. N. 

On July 14, 2010, Plaintiff Rosalie Aubree Guancione (referring to herself as “Rosalie

Guancione, a Maritime Trust”) filed a Chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Northern District of California, Case No. 10-57229-RLE. On July 22, 2010, the

bankruptcy court issued an order to show cause with respect to Rosalie Aubree Guancione’s selfidentification as an “unincorporated maritime private trust” and qualification as a Chapter 11

debtor, setting a hearing for August 4, 2010. RJN, Ex. O. 

II. REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE

Civil Local Rule 3-2(c) provides that an action filed in this district shall be assigned to the

division serving the county “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions which give

rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the

action is situated.” Plaintiffs originally filed the instant action in this Court’s Oakland division. 

Judge Susan Illston immediately transferred the case to the San Jose Division pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 3-2(c) because the concerned property is located in the City of San Jose. Because

transfer to the San Jose division was proper, Plaintiffs’ request to change venue will be denied. 

Case 5:10-cv-03166-JF Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 7
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

Case Number 5:10-CV-03166 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE AND APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

III. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

A. Legal Standard

The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction.

Brown Jordan Int'l, Inc. v. Mind's Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Hawaii

2002). A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a

clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). In order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a party must

demonstrate [1] 'that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable

harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4]

that an injunction is in the public interest.'" Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th

Cir. 2009), citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374. “A preliminary injunction [or TRO] is [also]

appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates. . .that serious questions going to the merits were

raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v.

Cottrell, No. 09-35756, slip op. (9th Cir. July 28, 2010) (holding that the “‘serious questions’

approach survives Winter when applied as part of the four-element Winter test.”) The issuance of

a preliminary injunction is committed to the discretion of the district court. Indep. Living Ctr. Of

S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644, 651 (9th Cir. 2009). 

B. Discussion

Plaintiffs’ pleadings are insufficient to demonstrate either that there are serious questions

going to the merits or that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying

claims. First, it is well-settled that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review state

court rulings. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983);

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Here, the state court already has

entered a judgment against Plaintiffs, awarding Wachovia possession of the subject property,

back rent, and damages. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars "cases brought by state-court losers

complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court

proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." 

Case 5:10-cv-03166-JF Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 7
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

Case Number 5:10-CV-03166 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE AND APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Accordingly, if

Plaintiffs wish to contest the decision of the state court, they must seek relief from the state court

of appeal. 

To the extent that Plaintiffs do not seek review of the state court’s determination of the

action, but instead seek an opportunity to re-litigate their claims, the claims almost certainly are

barred by res judicata. Int’l Union v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that res

judicata bars a party from relitigating any claims arising out fo the “same transactional nucleus of

fact” as litigated in the prior matter). The state court complaint also sought unencumbered

possession of the property at issue here and Plaintiffs challenged the legitimacy of Wachovia’s

interest in the property. Finally, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 28

U.S.C. § 2283. Scherbenske v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 626 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1059 (E.D. Cal.

2009) (holding that there “is no federal statute authorizing a district court to enjoin a state

unlawful detainer action. . .[,] there are no prior orders of this court or the Bankruptcy Court that

would be undermined by the unlawful detainer hearing[, and] an injunction against the unlawful

detainer action is not necessary to aid this court’s jurisdiction.”) 

Plaintiffs also assert that their eviction would violate the automatic stay provision of the

Bankruptcy Code. This assertion is without merit. First, as Wachovia points out, Rosalie

Aubree Guancione is the only Plaintiff who has filed a bankruptcy petition. RJN, Ex. O. 

Second, the automatic stay does not apply when a bankruptcy petition is filed after judgment has

been entered in an unlawful detainer action and the petitioner has not complied with 11 U.S.C. §

362(l) by filing a “certification under penalty of perjury that the debtor (or an adult dependent of

the debtor) has cured, under nonbankruptcy law applicable in the jurisdiction, the entire monetary

default that gave rise to the judgment under which possession is sought by the lessor. . .” 11

U.S.C. § 362(l)(2). Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff could establish a violation of the

automatic stay, their remedy lies within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1334, 157. 

Case 5:10-cv-03166-JF Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Case Number 5:10-CV-03166 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE AND APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

Good cause therefor appearing, the request to change venue and application for a TRO

are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/28/2010

____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-03166-JF Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Case Number 5:10-CV-03166 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CHANGE VENUE AND APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC1)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Anthony V. Guancione, III, R. Aubree' Guancione, and William Bullock Stewart, III

HI &RH Empress Aubree

P.O. Box 6341

Santa Clara, CA 95056

Case 5:10-cv-03166-JF Document 17 Filed 07/28/10 Page 7 of 7