Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Domingo v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 9, 2019

MANUEL P. DOMINGO, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA; et al., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [1]; AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Manuel P. Domingo, appearing pro se, filed his Complaint on July 8, 2019, against various Defendants. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff is seeking to prevent Defendants[1] from foreclosing on his business property located at 856 Kuhua Street, Lahaina, Hawaii 96761. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 48, 52.) Plaintiff did not file an application for a temporary restraining order as required by Local Rule 65-1. Instead, Plaintiff's Complaint seeks a temporary restraining order as his fifth cause of action. (Compl. ¶¶ 87-92.)

         Based on the Court's review of the Complaint and related pleadings, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order[2] and DISMISSES THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff owned and operated a business located at 856 Kuhua Street, Lahaina, Hawaii 96761 (the “Subject Property”). (Compl. ¶ 3.) Based on the Complaint, the Court cannot ascertain with certainty each Defendants' relationship to Plaintiff. However, it appears that Defendants are banks that issued the original loan, serviced the loan, or engaged or assisted in the assignment of the loan. (See Compl. ¶¶ 4-9, 17-19.)

         It is unclear what led to the instant lawsuit and whether Defendants have attempted to foreclose on the Subject Property. Nonetheless, Plaintiff “dispute[s] Defendants' superior colorable claim to legal title and equitable title of the [Subject Property].” (Compl. ¶ 13.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that “an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiff[] and Defendants . . . [and] Plaintiff[] desire[s] a judicial determination and declaration of its rights about the [Subject] Property and the corresponding Tangible Note and Deed of Trust.” (Compl. ¶ 27.)

         Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings six causes of action: (1) lack of standing/wrongful foreclosure; (2) breach of contract; (3) quiet title; (4) slander of title; (5) temporary restraining order and injunctive relief; and (6) declaratory relief. (Compl. ¶¶ 50-96.)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or where each plaintiff's citizenship is diverse from each defendant's citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

         “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (citation omitted). Federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional power and “are obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction.” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977).

         B. Temporary Restraining Order

         “An application for a temporary restraining order involves the invocation of a drastic remedy which a court of equity ordinarily does not grant, unless a very strong showing is made of a necessity and desirability of such action.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 103 F.Supp. 978, 980 (D.D.C. 1952). The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is ‚Äúsubstantially identical‚ÄĚ to that for issuing a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.