Bell v. Oama Coronado LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BELL, et al., Case No.: 25-cv-01170-CAB-DEB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO DISMISS AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT

14 OAMA CORONADO LLC, et al., [Doc. No 5] 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 7, 2025, Plaintiffs Michael Bell and Lisa Philips filed a complaint against 18 Defendants Oama Coronado LLC, Todd Brisco & Associates, Valerie Sparks, Judge Peter 19 F. Murray, and Sirein Roman. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiffs also filed a 21 motion to stay ongoing Superior Court proceedings. [Doc. No. 3.] The Court allowed 22 Plaintiffs to proceed IFP but dismissed the complaint and denied the motion for stay with 23 leave to amend. [Doc. No. 4.] Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint. [Doc. 24 No. 5.] The Court again screens the amended complaint and dismisses without leave to 25 amend. 26 The Court construes Plaintiffs’ amended complaint liberally. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 27 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). The recent filing by Plaintiffs confirms the Court’s 28 1 || prior analysis: Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief challenging “the 2 conduct and procedures occurring during [a] ongoing state proceeding.” [Doc. No. 5 at 1.] 3 As it relates to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it 4 ||involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States 5 ||v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). This threshold requirement “‘spring[s] from the 6 nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without 7 ||exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998) (quoting 8 || Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884). 9 Plaintiffs state that there has been no judgment entered against them. Taking this 10 || position as true, the Anti-Injunction Act nevertheless prohibits this Court from enjoining 11 |}ongoing state court proceedings with limited exceptions, none of which apply here. 28 12 U.S.C. § 2283; see Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng ’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 13 || 286 (1970) (listing exceptions). Numerous district courts have agreed, specifically in the 14 |/context of unlawful detainer proceedings. See, e.g., Diaz v. National City Bank, No. 10- 15 || CV-1230-IEG (WVG), 2012 WL 2129916, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2012). 16 Any amendment here would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 17 || Cir. 2000). This case is dismissed without leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to close 18 || the case. 19 20 Dated: May 19, 2025 (8 21 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28