I 2
estate is governed by the law of its situs."
43.
Abstention
is appropriate under
Rooker-Feldman, Burford and
J
Younger Doctrines. As mentioned previously, the Forde case is on point regarding
4
abstention, Forde v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., 2010 WL 5758614 (D. Artz. Dec. 6,
5
2010). Plaintiff s lawsuit concerns issues of state real property law and the interplay of
6
various state law statutory schemes. These issues should be decided in state court.
7
44.
Remand is Appropriate Because Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction to
8
Issue a Temporary Restraining Order
or Preliminary Injunction. In Plaintiffs
9
chosen jurisdiction, the court has authority
to issue a Temporary Restraining Order
10 11
t2 13
14 15
t6 t7
l8 t9 20
2l 22
Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff would have had an opportunity to be heard if Defendants had not removed the case to federal court the day before the hearing.
TheAnti-Injunction Act,28 U.S.C. 52283, is aUnited States federal statute that prohibits any federal court from issuing an injunction against proceedings in any state court, except within three specifically defined exceptions. As such, Plaintiff cannot seek
relief to stop an unlawful detainer in federal court.
45.
Defendants and their agents have already sent multiple individuals who have
attempted to enter the property, looked in the windows and photographed the property.
46.
Further, Defendants' counsel has already stated that Defendants
stipulate to waiting until the case
will
not
is litigated on the merits to prosecute an unlawful
detainer action.
47. It is therefore obvious why Defendants removed
the lawsuit, especially
given their vague and meritless claims. Defendants' and other large banking institutions
routinely harass pro 23
24
and
se
Plaintiffs with removals (especially under the guise of "fraudulent
removal") because most pro se Plaintiffs are not prepared to adequately defend themselves.
25
48.
Further complicating these issues is Arizona's unlawful detainer statutes. An
26
10-