Olteanu v. Schneider
2:23-cv-02006
D. Nev.Nov 20, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Andreea Melissa Olteanu, proceeding pro se, filed several emergency motions seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary injunction, and a writ of mandamus against various defendants stemming from a dispute over property ownership.
- Olteanu alleged a broad conspiracy to murder her husband, frame her for his murder, and unlawfully seize and sell her property at auction.
- Her motions centered on claims that defendants were clouding the title to her purported property and attempting to take it through improper means.
- The Court treated her TRO request as akin to a quiet title claim but found she failed to establish ownership or present supporting evidence.
- The writ of mandamus was also sought, but the Court found procedural and substantive defects: federal mandamus is not available on these facts, and there was no operative complaint on file due to the required in forma pauperis screening.
- The Court denied all emergency relief, reminded Olteanu of her obligation to follow court procedures, and directed her to self-help resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRO/Preliminary Injunction on Property | Olteanu owns the property; defendants clouding title | (Not clearly present) | Denied; no evidence of ownership or viable claim |
| Writ of Mandamus | Federal court should issue mandamus against state officials | (Not clearly present) | Denied; mandamus not available, no operative complaint |
| Request for Hearing, Expediting, Orders | Urged emergency hearing, expedited schedule, and relief | (Not clearly present) | Denied as moot |
| Court Procedure Compliance | Sought repeated emergency relief | (Not applicable) | Reminded to follow proper procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (TRO and preliminary injunction analyses are substantially identical)
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs. Inc., 758 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2014) (preliminary injunction standard in the Ninth Circuit)
- Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 302 P.3d 1103 (Nev. 2013) (requirements for a quiet title claim in Nevada)
- Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1992) (quiet title action standards)