Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00028/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00028-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kabita Choudhuri
Plaintiff
Barbara Johnson
Defendant
Britt Johnson
Defendant
Specialized Loan Services LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

KABITA CHOUDHURI,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICES LLC, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00028-PJH 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 16

On January 2, 2019, pro se plaintiff Kabita Choudhuri filed this foreclosure-related 

action asserting causes of action for “common counts,” “breach of contract,” and “fraud” 

against three defendants, Specialized Loan Services (“SLS”), Britt Johnson and Barbara 

Johnson (together with Britt Johnson, the “Johnson defendants”). Dkt. 1.1 The same 

day, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that essentially 

sought, inter alia, to stay defendants from foreclosing on plaintiff’s property. 

On January 4, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction 

because the complaint did not allege a federal cause of action and because complete 

diversity was lacking, as the Johnson defendants resided in California. Dkt. 13 at 4-5. In 

addition, the court explained that, even if it had jurisdiction, it would deny plaintiff’s motion 

for a TRO on the merits for two reasons. Id. at 5-8. First, plaintiff had not shown an 

imminent or immediate threatened injury because the “notice to vacate” that plaintiff 

relied upon (and complained about) merely provided plaintiff the option to voluntarily 

 

1

In conjunction with that filing, plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis. The court 

denied that application. Dkt. 13. 

Case 4:19-cv-00028-PJH Document 17 Filed 07/19/19 Page 1 of 4
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

vacate the property by January 9, 2019. Id. 6-7. Second, the court explained that 

plaintiff had not shown she was likely to succeed on the merits of her claim because the 

complaint did not sufficiently allege how defendants’ conduct violated any particular law. 

Id. at 7-8. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend and 

denied plaintiff’s motion for a TRO as moot. Id. at 8. In lieu of filing an amended 

complaint, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. Dkt. 14. 

The court is now in receipt of two motions filed by Choudhuri. First, plaintiff filed a 

“request for permission to reopen case.” Dkt. 15. That motion requests the court reopen 

this action, drop the Johnson defendants, and add a new defendant, Bosco Credit LLC

(“Bosco”). Id. According to the motion, “new evidence” in plaintiff’s ongoing bankruptcy 

action “has shown collusion between the parties to defraud” the plaintiff. Id.2 Plaintiff

also asserts that “the alleged holder of the second loan on [her] property is threatening to 

foreclose.” Id. The motion provides no further evidence about either assertion. 

Plaintiff’s second filing is a motion for a temporary restraining order. Excepting 

two paragraphs, that motion appears to be identical to plaintiff’s January 2, 2019 TRO. 

The two new paragraphs do not provide any reason to grant the motion. The first asserts 

that plaintiff paid SLS $71,000 to resolve all outstanding debts and to bring the loan 

current. Dkt. 16 ¶ 4. As best the court can tell, the second, which is aimed solely at 

Bosco, asserts that Bosco claims it owns part of plaintiff’s debt and is trying to collect on 

that debt in violation of some unspecified federal statute. Id. ¶ 5.g. 

Plaintiff’s motions must be denied for at least two reasons. First, this action has 

no operative complaint. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction over six months ago and plaintiff chose not to amend. Without an 

operative complaint (and without any other evidence), the court cannot determine 

whether plaintiff has shown she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. See Am. 

 

2 Plaintiff’s now-dismissed complaint made similar allegations about the bankruptcy 

action. Dkt. 1 at 4 (“During discovery of Marin Superior Court case CIV083115[,] . . . 

documents presented . . . revealed that [Wells Fargo] colluded within its own departments 

as well as with other defendants named” in this action “to defraud the plaintiff.”).

Case 4:19-cv-00028-PJH Document 17 Filed 07/19/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Trucking Assn’s, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Indeed, without an operative complaint the court does not have any claim to weigh 

plaintiff’s showing against. More fundamentally, without an operative complaint, this 

court cannot determine if it has subject-matter jurisdiction. For example, though plaintiff 

attempts to “drop” the Johnsons and “add” Bosco, the court cannot determine whether it 

has diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff has not alleged Bosco’s principal place of 

business or state of incorporation. 

Second, and assuming the existence of an operative complaint, plaintiff’s motion 

for a TRO on the present record would be denied. The party seeking the TRO “must 

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable 

harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and 

that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1046. As with her prior motion, plaintiff 

has not shown that foreclosure is imminent. Instead, plaintiff merely alleges that one of 

the loan-holders is “threatening to foreclose.” Without some facts about when that 

threatened foreclosure will take place, the court cannot conclude that plaintiff faces an 

imminent or immediate risk of injury. And, like her prior motion, plaintiff’s present motion, 

does not describe the alleged conduct in sufficient detail for the court to conclude that 

she will succeed on the merits of any unspecified claim. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. 

As to plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case, that motion is also DENIED for at least 

two reasons. First, this court’s prior order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to 

amend specifically prohibited plaintiff from “add[ing] any additional parties without leave 

of court.” Dkt. 13 at 8. Plaintiff’s present motion to reopen attempts to sidestep that 

order by seeking to reopen the case while adding a new defendant, Bosco. See Dkt. 15. 

Second, plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice, see Dkt. 14,

allowed plaintiff to file a new action without prejudice to plaintiff asserting the voluntarily 

dismissed claims. It did not, as plaintiff asserts, allow her to reopen the present action to 

add new defendants based on seemingly distinct conduct. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion 

Case 4:19-cv-00028-PJH Document 17 Filed 07/19/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

to reopen this action is DENIED. If plaintiff wishes to pursue her claims she may: (1) file 

a renewed motion to reopen this action and attach a complaint that asserts claims 

against only SLS and/or the Johnson defendants, or (2) file a new civil action. 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 

order and motion to reopen this case are DENIED. 

The court again reminds plaintiff that she may wish to seek free legal advice by 

calling the Legal Help Center at 415-782-8982 or by signing up for an appointment at the 

Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2795, San Francisco 

California 94102. There, plaintiff may speak with an attorney who will provide legal help, 

but not legal representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00028-PJH Document 17 Filed 07/19/19 Page 4 of 4