Jason-Oliver Warner, et al. v. Guaranteed Rate Affinity LLC, et al.

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jason-Oliver Warner, et al., No. CV-26-00049-TUC-JCH (MSA) 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Guaranteed Rate Affinity LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Mandatory Injunction for Restoration of Possession, and Preliminary Injunction Staying Eviction (Doc. 14).

18 The Complaint and Application appear to allege that Defendants improperly foreclosed on a loan on Plaintiffs’ property. But the Complaint also states that “Plaintiffs filed a Verified Complaint with TRO/Preliminary Injunction requests in the Arizona Superior Court on or about August 14, 2025, seeking to restrain foreclosure. The Superior Court later dissolved Plaintiffs’ previously-granted bonded preliminary injunction on October 3, 2025.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) The Complaint also indicates that the state court matter is currently pending at the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Id.) C20255589 25 The Court will deny the Application under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and because Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the Complaint. First, Plaintiffs filed a similar Application in their pending state court appeal, which the Arizona Court of Appeals denied on December 18, 2025.! To the extent Plaintiffs 2|| effectively ask this Court to overturn the state appellate court’s order, they seek appellate || review prohibited under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. 4|| Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman || doctrine bars federal review of state court orders).

6 Second, “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of 7|| right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def: Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Accordingly, “[a] || plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he 1s likely to succeed on the || merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that || the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Jd.

11 |} at 20.

12 Even assuming Plaintiffs have satisfied the other factors, the Court will deny the 13} Application because Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are likely to succeed on the 14]| merits of the Complaint. It is not apparent to this Court that Plaintiffs have adequately || stated a claim for relief. Moreover, there is a “longstanding policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings,” subject to few exceptions. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971). The parties to this suit are involved in active state court proceedings |} concerning what appear to be substantially similar issues to the issues in this suit. As such, the Court 1s concerned that it may lack jurisdiction over this action.

20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Application.

21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Temporary || Restraining Order, Mandatory Injunction for Restoration of Possession, and Preliminary || Injunction Staying Eviction (Doc. 14).

25 Dated this 20th day of March, 2026. Ans 26 : HAA 7 / / John C. Hinderaker 3g _/United States District Judge ' See https://www.appeals2.az.gov/ODSPlus/caseInfolast.cfm?caseID=135173. -2-