Bennett v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Office ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT N. BENNETT, Case No. 20-cv-07007-JSW 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 11 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, VACATING TEMPORARY 12 CONTRA COSTA SHERIFF'S OFFICE, RESTRAINING ORDER, AND VACATING HEARING Defendant. 13 Re: Dkt. No. 2 14 Now before the Court is the request for an order to show cause why a preliminary 15 injunction should not issue. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, 16 and the record in this case, and the Court finds the request suitable for disposition without oral 17 argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for October 20, 2020 at 10:00 18 a.m. is HEREBY VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, the Court HEREBY DENIES the 19 request for a preliminary injunction and VACATES its previous order granting a temporary 20 restraining order. 21 On October 8, 2020, this Court received an emergency ex parte motion for a temporary 22 retraining order filed by Plaintiff Robert N. Bennett, appearing pro se. With only the information 23 provided, the Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Mr. Bennett from eviction that 24 same day. The information provided by Mr. Bennett indicated he that was facing immediate 25 eviction and was subject to the protection provided by an order issued by the Centers for Disease 26 Control and Prevention (“CDC”) entitled Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent 27 1 In response to the Court’s order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not 2 issue, defendant Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department and the real party at interest, 3 Catamount Properties 2018, LLC (“Catamount”) filed timely oppositions. Mr. Bennett failed to 4 file a reply. 5 The CDC Order temporarily halts residential evictions of covered persons for nonpayment 6 of rent from the effective date of September 4, 2020 through December 31, 2020. Id. at 55,293. 7 The CDC Order was designed to limit evictions in order to mitigate “the spread of COVID-19 8 within congregate or shared living settings, or through unsheltered homelessness” during this 9 unprecedented pandemic. Id. The temporary halting of evictions for those covered by the CDC 10 Order allows local authorities to more easily implement the stay-at-home and social distancing 11 directives designed to mitigate the community spread of COVID-19. Id. The term “Eviction” is 12 defined in the CDC Order as “any action by a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other 13 person with a legal right to pursue eviction or cause the removal of a covered person from a 14 residential property. This does not include foreclosure on a home mortgage.” Id. 15 It is clear from the judicially noticeable documents filed in opposition to the request for a 16 preliminary injunction that Mr. Bennett is not entitled to the temporary eviction protections. Mr. 17 Bennett lost his interest in the property at 1801 Coalinga Avenue, in Richmond, California, 94801 18 (“the Property”) in a foreclosure sale on July 31, 2019, to Catamount.1 (Dkt. No. 12; Request for 19 Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A at 1.) On August 22, 2019, Catamount initiated an unlawful 20 detainer action before the Contra Costa Superior Court and was awarded judgment for possession 21 of the Property on February 4, 2020. (Id. at Exs. A at 3, E at 2.) A writ of possession was issued 22 on February 19, 2020, and lockout was set for March 18, 2020. (Id., Ex. A at 1-2.) On March 12, 23 2020, Mr. Bennett sought a stay for hardship. (Id., Ex. D at 1). The Superior Court issued a stay 24 of the lockout until March 27, 2020, conditioned upon the payment of costs. (Id.) 25 On March 16, 2020, the Contra Costa Public Health Officer ordered residents to shelter in 26 27 1 Catamount, the real party at interest, also appeared before this Court and opposed the order to 1 place due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id., Ex. F.) Due to the shelter in place order, the Contra 2 Costa Sheriff’s Office ceased performing evictions until September 2020. 3 On October 2, 2020, Mr. Bennett submitted an ex parte application before the Superior 4 Court to request an order directing Catamount to comply with the CDC Order and halt his eviction 5 from the Property, which had been set for October 8, 2020. (Id., Ex. C.) Mr. Bennett sought to 6 stop his eviction based on his interpretation that the CDC Order prevented property owners “with 7 legal right to pursue eviction from taking any action to remove tenants of residential property until 8 after December 31, 2020.” (Id. at 1.) Catamount opposed the request and argued that no landlord- 9 tenant relationship existed and that Mr. Bennett’s title to the Property was extinguished by the 10 foreclosure sale. (Id., Ex. D at 1.) The Superior Court denied Mr. Bennett’s application and ruled 11 that “there is no showing that this holdover occupant with judgment for possession entered against 12 him in February 2020 falls into the definitions contemplated in [the CDC Order].” (Id., Ex. B.) 13 After having been denied a stay of his eviction from the Superior Court, on October 7, 14 2020, Mr. Bennett filed an incomplete set of records before this Court seeking the same remedy – 15 to halt his eviction from the Property set for the early morning of October 8, 2020. The Court 16 granted the interim emergency remedy. However, having been provided a more comprehensive 17 record, it is clear that Mr. Bennett does not fall within the protections of the CDC Order as it does 18 not apply in foreclosure actions. See 85 Fed. Reg. 55,292 at 55,293; see also Dkt. No. 13-11, 19 HHS/CDC Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19 – 20 Frequently Asked Questions at 1.) 21 Furthermore, the remedy Mr. Bennett seeks in this action is barred by the state court 22 adjudication of the very same issue. The adjudication by the Superior Court of the precise issue 23 before this Court – the application of the CDC Order to Mr. Bennett’s eviction – is preclusive. 24 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of 25 injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings 26 commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil 27 Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The doctrine “prevents federal 1 facto appeals from state-court judgments: If claims raised in the federal action are ‘inextricably 2 || intertwined’ with the state court’s decision such that the adjudication of the federal claims would 3 undercut the state ruling[.]” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). The 4 || doctrine “bars federal adjudication of any suit in which a plaintiff alleges injury based on a state 5 court judgment and seeks relief from that judgment, not only direct appeals from a state court’s 6 || decision... even where the party does not directly challenge the merits of the state court’s 7 decision[.]” /d. at 900 n.4 (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 (1983)). 8 Here, although Mr. Bennett failed to mention that the Superior Court had denied his 9 || request to apply the CDC Order to halt his eviction, this Court finds the CDC Order is clear that it 10 || does not apply in foreclosure actions, and furthermore, this Court cannot review the Superior 11 Court’s order which came to the same conclusion. 12 A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a 13 || clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 14 Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per 3 15 curiam)). In order to obtain this extraordinary remedy, Plaintiffs must show “(1) they are likely to a 16 succeed on the merits, (2) they are likely to ‘suffer irreparable harm’ without relief, (3) the balance 3 17 || of equities tips in their favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” East Bay Sanctuary 18 Covenant v. Barr, 964 F.3d 832, 844-45 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Winter, 55 U.S. at 20). 19 Because Mr. Bennett has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits, the Court 20 || VACATES its order dated October 8, 2020 for a temporary restraining order and DENIES Mr. 21 Bennett’s request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should issue. 22 a | 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. fot ( | 4 tt 24 || Dated: October 19, 2020 \ Me AP Liu 25 fof ff (EPFLEY's. wifire 26 United States District Judge 27 28