Sterling v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
368 F. Supp. 3d 723
| S.D. Ill. | 2019Background
- Sterling claims an interest in 726 E. 219 St., Bronx via a 2008 bargain and sale deed; the property was subject to a foreclosure action brought by Deutsche Bank.
- Bronx County Supreme Court entered a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale in 2010; court denied Sterling's efforts in state court to vacate the sale, holding he was bound by the foreclosure because a notice of pendency predated his claimed interest.
- Sterling filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2014; Deutsche Bank obtained relief from the automatic stay in 2018 to permit the foreclosure sale to proceed.
- Sterling filed a Chapter 13 petition on December 3, 2018 and contends a foreclosure sale occurred (he also submitted emails suggesting the sale may have been stopped); he later dismissed the Chapter 13 case.
- Sterling sued in federal court alleging fraudulent appraisal/racketeering-related misconduct and sought a TRO/preliminary injunction to stop interference with his property rights; defendants have pending motions to dismiss.
- The district court denied the emergency relief motion, finding Sterling failed to show irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, or that the balance of hardships tipped decisively in his favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injunctive relief (TRO/PI) is warranted to preserve Sterling's property rights | Sterling: a fraudulent foreclosure sale and post-sale conduct (harassment, rent collection) irreparably deprive him of property and bankruptcy protections | Deutsche Bank: Sterling is bound by foreclosure proceedings; any sale possibly conducted in violation of the automatic stay can be addressed in Bankruptcy Court; injunction would unduly delay resolution and harm defendants | Denied. Sterling failed to show irreparable harm, likelihood of success, or that equities favor him |
| Whether alleged violation of the automatic stay creates irreparable injury justifying federal injunction | Sterling: sale occurred despite Chapter 13 filing, so automatic stay was violated and harm is irreparable | Defendants: Sterling has an adequate remedy in Bankruptcy Court (reopen/dismissal and attack sale) | Denied. Court found bankruptcy remedies adequate so no irreparable harm shown |
| Whether alleged harassment and interference with quiet enjoyment justify injunctive relief | Sterling: defendants are harassing him and interfering with tenants/quiet enjoyment | Defendants: allegations lack detail; tenant harm does not equate to Sterling's irreparable injury | Denied. Court found allegations too vague and harms mostly to tenants, not Sterling |
| Whether Sterling showed likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions meriting injunction | Sterling: asserts fraud and racketeering-based claims but provides limited factual support | Defendants: record lacks evidence to support Sterling’s claims; pending motions to dismiss | Denied. Court held Sterling’s claims are conclusory and insufficient to show likelihood of success or serious questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Sussman v. Crawford, 488 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2007) (movant must carry heavy burden for preliminary injunction)
- Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 409 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for likelihood of success and equities in preliminary injunction analysis)
- Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 408 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2005) (irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for a preliminary injunction)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary remedy requiring clear showing)
- Baker's Aid v. Hussmann Foodserv. Co., 830 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1987) (preliminary injunction in diversity actions generally governed by federal law)
- Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839 (N.Y. 2005) (state-law standard for preliminary injunction parallels federal standard)