Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01685/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY E. APPLETON, Trustee of

the 4347 Vintage Oaks Lane J &

N Appleton Trust of 1999, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant. 

CIV-S-05-1685 WBS KJM 

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

Plaintiff Nancy Appleton has filed an ex parte application

for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff requests an

injunction staying a state court proceeding, The People of the

State of California v. Alden Jonathan Appleton, First Financial,

Inc., and First Financial, Case No. 99AS00592, now pending in

Sacramento County Superior Court.

The state case was filed in 1999. In August 2001, the state

court appointed a receiver to administer assets to pay victims’

claims. In October 2001, the state court found the residence at

4347 Vintage Oaks Lane (the “property”) subject to the

receivership estate. Although plaintiff was not a party to the

Case 2:05-cv-01685-WBS -KJM Document 13 Filed 08/24/05 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

2

state court action, she does not claim she was unaware of the

court’s decision. In addition, plaintiff failed to intervene,

move for reconsideration, or appeal the court’s decision.

In January 2004, the receiver sought permission from the

state court to sell the property. At that time, plaintiff filed

an opposition. However, in February 2004, when the court granted

the receiver permission to sell the property, plaintiff, again,

failed to seek intervention, reconsideration, or appeal. 

In July 2005, the receiver filed a petition for an order

confirming sale of the property. Once again, plaintiff filed an

opposition, but did not intervene in the state action. On August

23, 2005, the receiver’s petition was set for hearing before the

state court judge.

On August 19, 2005, plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action in federal court although it was not referred to the

undersigned judge until August 23, 2005. Plaintiff claims that a

decision of the state court permitting sale of the residence will

violate her constitutional rights because she has not had a

sufficient opportunity to participate in the state court action

to defend her property rights. 

The motion for TRO is denied principally because it is

untimely. There is no reason why this action and request for

stay should not have been filed in October 2001, February 2004,

or July 2005. By waiting to file this action until the state

court was prepared to issue a final ruling, plaintiff has misused

the temporary restraining order. E.D. Cal. L.R. 65-231(b). 

Case 2:05-cv-01685-WBS -KJM Document 13 Filed 08/24/05 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

3

Furthermore, the showing on the merits is not persuasive. 

It is unclear whether plaintiff has any interest in the property. 

The state court recently found the claim “meritless” in a

tentative ruling.

Therefore, given the lateness of the action, the disruption

to the state court proceedings that would be caused were the

temporary restraining order to issue, and the inadequate showing

on the merits, plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining

order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/24/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

Chief United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01685-WBS -KJM Document 13 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 3