Torres v. Jorrin
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Gilbert Anthony Torres moved for a preliminary injunction against Defendants, including individuals associated with the 'Green Wall.' The Court denied the motion because Plaintiff had not yet served the Complaint on the Defendants, meaning the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Preliminary Injunction denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a federal court cannot issue an injunction against parties over whom it does not have personal jurisdiction. Since the complaint had not been served, the defendants were not before the court, making the injunction improper at this stage. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that service of process is a prerequisite for personal jurisdiction and that an injunction cannot be issued against unserved parties. The reliance on Zepeda and Zenith Radio is appropriate for this jurisdictional bar. The court did not need to reach the merits of the injunction (the Winter factors) because the threshold jurisdictional requirement was not met.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Gilbert Anthony Torres, Case No.: 20-cv-00891-AJB-BLM Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 13 INJUNCTION A. Jorrin, et al., 14 Defendants. (Doc. No. 15) 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction against Defendants 17 and other individuals. (Doc. No. 15 at 1–3 (requesting the Court to enjoin “Defendants, 18 their successors in office, agents, and employees and all other persons acting in concert 19 and participation with them” and “members or associates of the ‘Green Wall’”).) 20 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 21 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A federal 22 court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 23 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 24 before the court.” Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 On July 9, 2020, after conducting a pre-answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 26 §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), the Court directed service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on 27 Defendants. (Doc. No. 7 at 8–10.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has yet to serve 28 1 || Defendants his Complaint.' Because Defendants have not been served, the Court does not 2 ||have personal jurisdiction over them, and may not attempt to determine their rights. 3 || Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 4 || Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“[O]ne is not bound by a judgment in personam 5 resulting from litigation . .. to which he has not been made a party by service of process.’’) 6 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: October 14, 2020 10 United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The Court notes that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 13) remains pending, and thus, the operative complaint for service on Defendants is Plaintiffs initial Complaint (Doc. No. 1).