Dubinina v. Heinsohn

Background

Tayisiya Dubinina and Olena Cherednychenko filed the case and moved for a temporary restraining order. They sought to prevent enforcement of a November 14, 2025 order and a subpoena issued to Defendant Wells Fargo Bank in San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 17-FAM-02049. The opinion states that the plaintiffs were representing themselves without an attorney.

Why the Court Denied Emergency Relief

The court held that the motion was procedurally deficient. The plaintiffs stated that they had sent the motion and supporting papers by email and first-class mail, but they did not provide proofs of service showing that notice had been given to the defendants. Their declarations also did not describe efforts to provide notice or explain why notice could not be given. In addition, the court was not persuaded that the declarations clearly showed immediate and irreparable harm before the defendants could respond.

The court also denied the motion on the merits of the request for emergency relief. It explained that a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown likely success or even serious questions going to the merits.

Anti-Injunction Act

The court stated that it appeared to lack jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. The federal Anti-Injunction Act generally bars a federal court from issuing an injunction that stops proceedings in a state court, unless a statutory exception applies, the injunction is necessary to protect the federal court's jurisdiction, or it is necessary to protect or enforce one of the federal court's judgments. The court found that none of those exceptions appeared to apply. It therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not made the required threshold showing for injunctive relief.

Orders

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order on both procedural and substantive grounds. It also ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—that is, to explain—why the case should not be dismissed because the requested relief is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a written response by January 9, 2026. The court stated that the matter would then be taken under submission without a hearing.