Bennett v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Office
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-07007
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bennett v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Office, Judge White denied a preliminary injunction, vacated the temporary restraining order, and vacated the eviction hearing.
Robert N. Bennett, the Contra Costa Sheriff's Office, and Catamount Properties 2018, LLC. The ruling removed the federal temporary order that had stopped Bennett’s eviction and left the requested preliminary injunction denied.
What happened
In Bennett v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Office, Robert N. Bennett asked the federal court to stop his eviction under a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order temporarily protecting some renters during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court had initially issued a temporary restraining order after Bennett said he faced immediate eviction.
The court concluded that the protection did not cover Bennett because Catamount Properties 2018, LLC had acquired the property through foreclosure, and a state court had already awarded Catamount possession. The court also said a federal court could not review the state court’s decision on the same issue.
Judge White denied Bennett’s request for a preliminary injunction, vacated the earlier temporary restraining order, and vacated the scheduled hearing. Bennett represented himself, while the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office and Catamount opposed his request.
The detailed version
- Bennett v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Office · No. 4:20-cv-07007
- Jeffrey White
- Oct. 19, 2020
Background
Robert N. Bennett, representing himself, filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order to stop his eviction from property identified as 1801 Coalinga Avenue in Richmond, California. On October 8, 2020, the court issued that temporary order based on the information then provided. The court later ordered the parties to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
Catamount Properties 2018, LLC, identified as the real party at interest, and the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department filed oppositions. Bennett did not file a reply. The court also vacated the hearing scheduled for October 20, 2020.
Reasons for the ruling
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order temporarily halted some residential evictions for nonpayment of rent from September 4 through December 31, 2020. The court concluded that Bennett was not covered by that order. According to the court, Bennett lost his interest in the property at a foreclosure sale on July 31, 2019. Catamount then obtained a state-court judgment for possession, and a writ of possession was issued.
The court explained that the CDC order did not apply to foreclosure actions. It also held that the state court had already decided the same question—whether the CDC order stopped Bennett’s eviction. The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a rule that generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing or rejecting a state-court judgment when the federal case seeks relief from that judgment.
Disposition
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary order requiring a clear showing that the requesting party is likely to succeed, likely to suffer harm that cannot be repaired later, favored by the balance of hardships, and supported by the public interest. Because Bennett had not shown that he was likely to succeed, Judge Jeffrey S. White denied the request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should issue, vacated the October 8 temporary restraining order, and vacated the hearing. The opinion does not state a separate final disposition of any underlying claims beyond these rulings.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.