Cutlip v. Deutche Bank National Trust Company for the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Pass-Through Certificates 2007-7
5:15-cv-01345
N.D. Cal.
Mar 27, 2015

Background

  • William Cutlip (pro se) sued Deutsche Bank National Trust Company challenging an unlawful detainer judgment and seeking to halt actions concerning his Campbell, CA property (619 Union Avenue).
  • Cutlip filed an ex parte Emergency TRO application to prevent Deutsche Bank from taking action against the property and to vacate the unlawful detainer judgment as obtained by fraud.
  • State court litigation had already produced an unlawful detainer judgment against Cutlip, affirmed on appeal in Santa Clara County; Cutlip alleges fraud and due-process violations.
  • Cutlip invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Deutsche Bank acted jointly with the state to deprive him of property without due process.
  • The Court found Cutlip failed to provide required notice for an ex parte TRO and, on the merits, found he did not show a likelihood of success or serious questions going to the merits under the Winter/Alliance standards.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether a TRO should issue to stop Deutsche Bank from acting against the property Cutlip: immediate irreparable harm — Deutsche Bank has a writ of possession and will sell the property if vacated; TRO needed to preserve home Deutsche Bank: (implicit) no immediate enforcement/sale shown; Plaintiff failed to give notice for ex parte relief Denied: Plaintiff failed to comply with notice rules and did not show likelihood of success or imminent enforcement supporting TRO
Whether § 1983 liability applies to Deutsche Bank for actions resulting from state-court proceedings Cutlip: bank’s alleged fraud in state court made the deprivation a state-action due-process violation under § 1983 Deutsche Bank: use of judicial process does not transform a private actor into a state actor Denied: Court held Cutlip failed to show state action; mere resort to courts does not make bank a joint actor under § 1983
Whether Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state-court judgment Cutlip: asserts extrinsic fraud exception; seeks relief vacating state unlawful detainer Deutsche Bank: relief effectively asks federal court to overturn state judgment Held: Rooker–Feldman likely applies; plaintiff’s claims appear to attack the state-court judgment and are barred absent clear extrinsic-fraud showing
Whether irreparable harm and balance of equities support injunctive relief absent merits showing Cutlip: loss of home is irreparable and public interest favors injunction Deutsche Bank: plaintiff must show likelihood of success in addition to alleged irreparable harm Held: Loss of property alone insufficient without likelihood of success; other factors favor plaintiff but do not overcome lack of merits

Key Cases Cited

  • Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir.) (TRO and preliminary injunction standards are the same)
  • Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft, 887 F. Supp. 1320 (N.D. Cal.) (procedural aspects of injunction practice)
  • Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Burbank, 136 F.3d 1360 (9th Cir.) (judicially noticeable records may be considered)
  • M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego Marine Const. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483 (9th Cir.) (limits on using judicially noticed documents to supply essential factual support)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S.) (four-factor injunction standard and extraordinary-nature of relief)
  • Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (serious-questions alternative standard for injunction)
  • Leiva–Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.) (clarifies serious-questions/substantial-case requirement)
  • Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462 (9th Cir.) (burden on movant to make clear showing for injunction)
  • Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (U.S.) (private-party conduct must be fairly attributable to the State for § 1983 liability)
  • Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (U.S.) (winning a lawsuit does not alone make a party a state actor or conspirator with judge)
  • Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir.) (extrinsic-fraud exception discussion re: Rooker–Feldman)
  • Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.) (explains Rooker–Feldman doctrine barring federal review of state court judgments)
  • Harper v. Federal Land Bank of Spokane, 878 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir.) (use of state foreclosure procedures is not state action for § 1983)
Read the full case