Washington v. Bank Of America

Background

Plaintiff Anthonia Or H Washington filed an ex parte motion for an emergency injunction and an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserted claims under the “Federal Home Loan Bank Act,” “Federal Reserve Acts,” and “Home Owner’s Loan Act,” based on the alleged failure of Bank of America to return her deposit in full on demand.

Washington asked the court to prevent the resale of her farmland in Lake County, California. More specifically, she sought to stop nonparty Discount Lots from proceeding with a default sale so that she could preserve ownership while her claims against Bank of America were pending.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which governs temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. The court explained that an injunction generally binds the named parties and certain people connected to them, including their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and people acting in active concert or participation with them.

Washington did not allege that Discount Lots had an agency relationship with Bank of America. The court therefore considered whether Discount Lots could be covered as a nonparty that either assisted Bank of America in unlawful conduct or was legally identified with Bank of America through a relationship such as privity.

The court found that Washington did not allege that Discount Lots aided or abetted Bank of America’s alleged refusal to provide her money. She also did not allege that Discount Lots and Bank of America were legally connected or in privity. Instead, the operative complaint suggested that Bank of America’s account policies and refusal to disburse funds were separate from Discount Lots’ possible property sale based on nonpayment.

Ruling

The court held that it could not enjoin a land sale by a nonparty that was completely unrelated to Washington’s claims against Bank of America. It therefore denied Washington’s ex parte application for an emergency injunction.

The court stated that it would consider and screen Washington’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a separate order. This order did not resolve the merits of the amended complaint’s claims.