Washington v. Bank Of America

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01684
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONIA OR H WASHINGTON, Case No. 25-cv-01684-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

10 BANK OF AMERICA, Re: Dkt. No. 10 Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is an ex parte motion for an emergency injunction and amended 14 complaint filed by Plaintiff Anthonia Or H Washington. In the amended pleading, Plaintiff asserts 15 claims pursuant to the “Federal Home Loan Bank Act,” “Federal Reserve Acts,” and “Home 16 Owner’s Loan Act” based on Defendant Bank of America’s alleged failure to return her deposit in full on demand. ECF 10 at 3-4. However, Plaintiff requests “an emergency injunction to prevent 17 re-sale of” her farmland in Lake County, California. Id. at 7. Plaintiff generally requests an 18 injunction to prevent non-party Discount Lots from proceeding with a default sale of the property 19 so that she can preserve ownership during the pendency of her claims against Bank of America. 20 Id. at 6. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs preliminary injunctions and temporary 22 restraining orders such as the request for emergency injunction at issue. Rule 65 rests on the 23 premise that “a federal court exercising its equitable authority may enjoin named defendants from 24 taking specified unlawful actions. But under traditional equitable principles, no court may 25 lawfully enjoin the world at large.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 44 (2021) 26 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 65 accordingly provides that injunctive relief “binds only 27 . . . (A) the parties; (B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and 1 (C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described” in subsections 2 || (A) and (B). Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). 3 Plaintiff does not allege any agency-based relationship between non-party Discount Lots 4 and Defendant Bank of America, leaving only Rule 65(d)(2)(C) potentially applicable here. 5 Under Rule 65(d)(2)(C), for an injunction to bind a non-party, the movant must show that the non- 6 || Party either (1) aided and “‘abet[ted] the enjoined party in” the unlawful conduct or (2) is “legally 4 identified” with the defendant, 1.e., in privity with the named defendant. Consumer Fin. Prot. g Bureau v. Howard L., P.C., 671 F. App’x 954, 955 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted); see also 9 Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1323-24 (9th Cir. 1998) (aiding and abetting); 10 Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1280 (9th Cir. 1992) (privity). Here, Plaintiff does not allege that non-party Discount Lots aided and abetted Bank of America in its alleged refusal to give Plaintiff her money. Plaintiff similarly does not allege that E Discount Lots and Bank of America are in any way legally connected or in privity with each other. = To the contrary, Plaintiff's operative complaint suggests that Bank of America’s account policies 4 and refusals to disburse funds stand separate from the potential real property sale by Discount Lots 1S due to non-payment. See ECF 10 at 5-7, 13. Based on these allegations, the Court cannot enjoin a 16 land sale by a non-party completely unrelated to Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Bank of America. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs ex parte application for an emergency 18 injunction. 19 The Court will consider and screen Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Title 28 20 |) U.S.C. § 1915 separate order. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: March 19, 2025 24 (Mnacel 6 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 27 28