NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
JAM ES OR TIZ; YOLANDA Y. ) No. 18-56097 OR TIZ, ) ) D.C . No. 2:18-c v-05562-SJO-PLA Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts, )

) M EM OR

A NDUM * v. ) ) STATE OF C ALIFOR

NIA; ) C ITIB ANK, NA, a s Truste e for ) Am e ric an Hom e M ortga ge Asse ts ) Trust 2006-3, M ortga ge B a c ke d ) Pa ss Through C e rtific a te s Se rie s ) 2006-3, ) ) De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s . ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of C e n tra l C a lifornia S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 14, 2019 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, M . SM ITH, a nd M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED
NOV 25 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Jam e s Ortizand Yola nda Ortiz(he re a fte r c olle c tive l y “ t he Ortiz e s” ) a

ppe a l the d istric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of the ir a c tion a ga inst theState of C a lifornia 1 and C itiba nk, N.A., a s Truste e (he re a fte r “ C itiba nk” ). W e a ffirm
. The Ortiz e s sought to enjoin proc e e d i ngs in a n unla wful de ta ine r a c tion pre v iously

file d a g a inst the m by

C itiba nk a nd proc e e ding in the

Supe rior C ourt of the State of C a lifornia

for the C ounty

of Los Ange le s. Howe ve r, a s the distric t
c ourt he ld, due to the provisions of the Anti-Injunc tion Ac t , it c ould “ not gra nt a n injunc tion to sta

y proc e e dings in [the ] State c ourt.” 28 U.S.C . § 2283; s e e also C alifornia v. Randtron , 284 F.3d 969, 974 (9th C ir. 2002). W e are aware of the
e xc e ptions se t forth in tha t Ac t. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2283. Howe ve r, nothing in the
re c o rd sugge sts tha

t the Ortiz e s ’ c la im s fe l l within one of those “ na

rrow” 2
e xc e ptions, a

n d if the re we re som e doubt, wewould ha ve to re solve the doubt in favor of the Anti-Injunc tion Ac t’ s prohibition. 3

1 On a ppe a l, the Ortiz e s ha

ve wa ive d the ir c la im s a ga inst theState of C a lifornia by sta ting tha t the State should not ha

ve be e n na

m e d a s a de fe nda nt a nd its dismissa l wa s a

ppropria te
. 2 Se e Smith v . Bay e r C

orp ., 564 U.S. 299, 306, 131 S. Ct. 2368, 2375, 180 L. Ed. 2d 341 (2011).

3 Se e Atl. C

oast Line R.R. C o. v . Bhd. of Loc omotiv e Eng’rs , 398 U.S. 281, 297, 90 S. C t . 1739, 1748, 26 L. Ed. 2d 234 (1970). W e do not ove rlook the

(c ontinue d...) 2M ore ove r, be c a use it is a ppa re nt tha t a ny am e ndm e nt by the Ortiz e s would fa il to ove rc o m e the stric ture s of the Anti-Injunc tion Ac t, a nd would, there fore , be futile , the distric t c ourt did not err whe n it de nie d le ave to a m e n d. Se e Missouri e

x
re l. K o ste r v . Harris , 847 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th C ir. 2017). 4 AFFIRM E D
.

3 (...c ontinue d) Ortiz e s’ s ugge s tion tha

t the ir c l a im s c ould possibly fa ll unde r 42 U.S.C
. § 1983. Se e M itc h um v . Foste r , 407 U.S. 225, 242–43, 92 S. C t. 2151, 2162, 32 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1972). Howe v e r, the y did not ple a d tha

t, a nd c ould not pursue an a c tion a ga inst theState of C a lifornia unde r § 1983. M ore ove r, the re is no indic a tion tha t C itiba nk wa s or is a

sta te a c t or or a

n e ntity a c t ing in c onc e rt with a

sta te a c tor. Se e Pric e v . Haw aii , 939 F.2d 702, 708 (9th C ir. 1991); How e r ton v . Gabic a , 708 F.2d 380, 382–83 (9th C ir. 1983); se e also W e st v . Atk ins , 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. C t. 2250, 2255, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1988).

4 In light of our de c ision re ga rding the Anti-Injunc tion Ac t , we ne e d not, a nd do not, ta ke up the othe r issue s ra ise d by the pa rtie s on a ppe a l. 3