United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court upon consideration of pro se
Plaintiff Christine Winsey's Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc.
# 2), filed on April 26, 2017. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage
LLC has not yet been served, nor made an appearance. For the
reasons below, the Motion is denied insofar as it requests a
temporary restraining order.
April 26, 2017, Winsey filed her Complaint against Nationstar
alleging that Nationstar violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, breached an agreement between the parties,
violated Florida Statutes section 673.5011, and violated
Florida Statutes section 673.6031. (Doc. # 1). Concomitant
with her Complaint, Winsey filed the pending Motion seeking,
in part, an emergency temporary restraining order that
enjoins the sale of her home at a foreclosure sale scheduled
for April 27, 2017. (Doc. # 2 at 4).
may issue a temporary restraining order if the movant
establishes: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered
if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury
outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the
non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the
public interest.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v.
Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). Winsey
has made no attempt to demonstrate a substantial likelihood
of success on the merits of her Complaint. Rather, without
citation to authority, she argues that the threat of losing
the home at foreclosure “reduces the ‘likelihood
of success on the merits' showing required for a
preliminary injunction.” (Doc. # 2 at 4). That argument
is without merit because “[c]ontrolling precedent is
clear that injunctive relief may not be granted unless the
plaintiff establishes the substantial likelihood of success
criterion.” Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1226.
“[u]nder the Anti-Injunction Act, a district court may
not enjoin state proceedings ‘except as expressly
authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of
its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its
judgments.'” Arthur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,
NA, 569 Fed.Appx. 669, 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 2283)). “The . . . ‘necessary in
aid of its jurisdiction' exception applies in two
narrow circumstances: (1) the federal court gains
jurisdiction over res in an in rem
proceeding before a party brings a subsequent state court
action; or (2) the federal court is presented with a similar
context, ” e.g., the need to protect an earlier-issued
injunction. Id. (citing Burr & Forman v.
Blair, 470 F.3d 1019, 1028-29 (11th Cir. 2006)).
“[T]he third exception, known as the
“relitigation exception, ” . . . is applicable
where subsequent state law claims ‘would be precluded
by the doctrine of res judicata.' . . . In addition to
the existence of a federal judgment, ‘the party seeking
the injunction must make a strong and unequivocal showing of
relitigation.'” Id. at 678-79 (citations
case, Winsey has failed to demonstrate any of the three
exceptions apply. The Motion does not point to any act of
Congress that would allow for injunctive relief. Id.
(finding first exception not met where party seeking
injunction failed to cite an act of Congress allowing for
injunctive relief). In addition, the Court is not proceeding
in rem as it has not obtained jurisdiction over
res. Furthermore, Winsey has not pointed to any
previously-issued federal injunction that must be protected
against the scheduled foreclosure sale. Finally, Winsey has
not shown the existence of a prior federal judgment in her
favor. Id. at 678-79 (finding third exception not
met where party seeking injunction failed to point to a
federal judgment issued in its favor). Accordingly,
Winsey's request for a temporary restraining order is
denied. See Dyer v. The Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No.
5:17-cv-130-Oc-30PRL, 2017 WL 1165552, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
29, 2017) (denying plaintiff's request for an injunction
to prevent foreclosure sale under the Anti-Injunction Act);
Littlejohn v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No.
3:15-cv-194-J-34JRK, 2015 WL 789131, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb.
24, 2015) (same).
extent the Motion requests a preliminary injunction, it is
referred to the Honorable Julie S. Sneed, United States
Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation.
ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Pro se Plaintiff Christine
Winsey's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2) is DENIED insofar as it
seeks a temporary restraining order.
the extent the Motion requests a preliminary injunction, it
is referred to the Honorable Julie S. Sneed, United States