Opinion
Case No.: 2:16-cv-1860-GMN-NJK
11-23-2016
RONALD WILLIAMS, JANN WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORP. et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is an Ex Parte Motion for Restraining Order (ECF No. 69) filed by pro se Plaintiffs Ronald and Jann Williams ("Plaintiffs") against Defendants National Default Servicing Corporation, Duke Partners II, LLC, Michael A Bosco, Wendy Van Luven, and Carmen Navejas (collectively, "Defendants").
In light of Plaintiffs' status as pro se litigants, the Court has liberally construed their filings, holding them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). --------
Concurrent with this case, the parties also have an Unlawful Detainer Action in Justice Court. (Pls.' Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 9:7-13, ECF No. 48). On October 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction requesting that the Court issue an order "enjoining jurisdiction of the Justice Court on the Case brought by the defendant for unlawful detainer . . . including vacating the hearing on the Order to Show Case [sic] set for November 9, 2016." (Id. 9:7-13). On October 27, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion explaining that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits a "court of the United States" from granting "an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. As such, the Court found that the requested relief of enjoining the Unlawful Detainer Action currently underway in the Las Vegas Justice Court "is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act's prohibition against enjoining 'proceedings in State court.'" (Order on Prelim. Inj. 4:8-9, ECF No. 52).
Plaintiffs' instant motion asks this Court to enjoin the enforcement of the "Temporary Writ of Restitution" issued by the Las Vegas Justice Court. (Mot. Restraining Order 1:25-27, ECF No. 69). As explained in the Court's previous Order, "It is settled that the prohibition of § 2283 cannot be evaded by . . . prohibiting utilization of the results of a completed state proceeding." Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970). In other words, "the term 'proceedings' in the Anti-Injunction Act does not merely apply to ongoing litigation before a state tribunal—the Act also bars injunctive relief which prevents a victorious state litigant from executing a state judgment." Pelfresne v. Vill. of Williams Bay, 865 F.2d 877, 879 (7th Cir. 1989). As such, here, even though the Justice Court proceeding has concluded with a "Temporary Writ of Restitution," this Court cannot interfere with the enforcement of the Justice Court's Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Restraining Order (ECF No. 69) is DENIED.
DATED this 23 day of November, 2016.
/s/_________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court