Williams v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al, No. 3:2013cv00318 - Document 34 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 33 Opposed EMERGENCY MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, and MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CARL WILLIAMS, § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION as TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED TRUST FANNIE MAE GUARANTEED REMIC PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES REMIC TRUST 2007-73, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM a/k/a MERS, DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF A WRIT OF POSSESSION, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. G-13-0318 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before Application for Emergency Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Hearing on (Docket Entry the Preliminary No. court is Plaintiff's Injunction 33). For ("Plaintiff's the reasons Application") explained below, Plaintiff's Application will be denied. I. Background Plaintiff obtained a home equity loan in 2006. 1 "Plaintiff entered into financial difficulties thereafter in 2009, and went 1Plaintiff's Application, Docket Entry No. 33, p. 5 ~ 15. (Page citations are to the pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the federal court's electronic filing system.) into default on his payments." 2 On January I, 2013, Plaintiff's property was sold to Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") at a foreclosure sale. 3 Fannie Mae obtained a judgment of eviction in June of 2013 and "a writ of possession has issued on the judgment." 4 On June 25, the 2013, Plaintiff brought this action challenging foreclosure and making other claims in the 149th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, where it was filed under Cause No. 73176. 5 Defendants removed the action to this court. 6 On May 16, 2014, "the constable notified Plaintiff that Fannie Mae had requested Plaintiff be evicted, and the constable plans to evict Plaintiff on May 27, 2014."7 II. Analysis Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the eviction. A movant for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury, (3) the 2Id. ~ 16. 3Id. at 4 ~ 13; 6 ~ 19. 4Id. at 4 ~ 13. 5Plaintiff's Original Petition, Exhibit Removal, Docket Entry No. 1-2, pp. 3-43. B to Notice 6Notice of Removal, Docket Entry No.1. 7Plaintiff's Application, Docket Entry No. 33, p. 4 ~ 12. -2 - ---- ----------~--- of threatened injury outweighs any damage that injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) injunction will not disserve the public interest." Reeves v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Cir. 2011) Cir. 431 F. App'x 304, the the 305 (5th (quoting Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th The 1991)) court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Application together with the pleadings and evidence on file and concludes that Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, Injunction Act, relief. 416 (5th this court 28 U.S.C. lacks jurisdiction under the Anti- 2283, to grant Plaintiff's requested § See Knoles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 513 F. App'x 414, Cir. 2013) i Brinson v. Universal No. G-13-463, 2014 WL 722398, at *2-3 Am. Mortgage Co. I (S.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2014); Green v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. H-13-1092, 2013 WL 2417916, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 4, 2013). In Knoles the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court's denial of a temporary restraining order that would have prevented practical an effect, eviction would because enjoin [the "[t]he relief mortgage sought, company] ln from enforcing a valid extant judgment of a Texas court," holding that "[t]he district court is denied jurisdiction to grant that relief by the Anti-Injunction Act." 513 F. App'x at 416. Plaintiff acknowledges that Fannie Mae "obtained a judgment of eviction against Plaintiff's property in Cause No. CI 04 94 04 of BRAZORIA County Court at Law No.1; on or about June 20, 2013," and -3- that "[a] writ of possession has issued on the judgment. liB Plaintiff brought this action on June 25, 2013,9 after Fannie Mae obtained the judgment of eviction. Cf. Knoles, 415-16; Brinson, 2014 WL 722398, at *3. 513 F. App'x at "To the extent that there was a forcible detainer proceeding and an eviction order, this court lacks the ability to provide the requested relief [because] \ [t]he Anti-Injunction Act generally prohibits federal courts from interfering with proceedings in state Green, court.'" 2013 WL 241796, at *1 (quoting Health Net, Inc. v. Wooley, 534 F.3d 487, 493 (5th Cir. 2008)). III. Having carefully Conclusion and Order considered pleadings and evidence on file, concludes that Plaintiff's Application, and the relevant law, Plaintiff's Application for the the court Emergency Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Hearing on Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry No. 33) should be and is hereby DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 23rd day of May, 2014. 7 SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE BPlaintiff's Application, Docket Entry No. 33, p. 4 ~ 13. 9Plaintiff's Original Petition, Exhibit Removal, Docket Entry No. 1-2, pp. 3-43. -4- """------"----- B to Notice of