Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner La, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00272-MEMF-RAO (Feb. 23, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et al
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Feb. 23, 2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et al, Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 563023Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, C.D. California.Zeus Realty Group LLCv.1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et alCase No. 2:26-cv-00272-MEMF-RAO|Filed 02/23/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsDamon Berry, Deputy Clerk, Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:Court Reporter / Recorder, Attorneys Present for Defendants:Jeff A. Mann, Law Office of Jeff Mann, Los Angeles, CA, forZeus Realty Group LLC.Daniel L. Goodkin, Goodkin Law Group, Los Angeles, CA,Seymour B. Everett III, Izaiah Enrique Chacon, Everett DoreyLLP, Irvine, CA, Michael Abtin Shakouri, Meta Law Group,APC, Los Angeles, CA, for 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA,LLC.PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDERDENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER [DKT. NO. 9]The Honorable: Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong*1 Before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunctionfiled by Plaintiff Zeus Realty Group LLC on January 23,2026. Dkt. No. 9 (“Motion”). For the below reasons, the CourtDENIES the Motion.I. Factual and Procedural BackgroundOn December 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit in the Los AngelesSuperior Court. Dkt. No. 1-2. Plaintiff alleges: (1) declaratoryrelief—rent abatement; (2) breach of lease; (3) breach ofquiet enjoyment; (4) breach of covenant of good faith andfair dealing; (5) injunctive relief; and (6) unjust enrichment.See generally id. The Complaint alleges that Defendant 1032N. Sycamore Owner LA LLC failed to perform mandatoryrepairs, refused to pursue available insurance, and attemptedto prosecute an unlawful detainer based on a facially defectivenotice—following a water pressure surge that caused damageto recording facility. Id. 1. Plaintiff and Defendant hadentered into a lease regarding the recording facility. Id. 9.On January 9, 2026, Defendant removed the action to thisCourt. Dkt. No. 1.On January 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. Dkt.No. 4. On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion.Motion. On January 28, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition.Dkt. No. 11 (“Opposition”). On January 30, 2026, Plaintifffiled a Reply. Dkt. No. 15 (“Reply”).II. Applicable LawRule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure providesthat a court may issue a preliminary injunction “only on noticeto the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Rule 65(b)(1)provides that a court may issue a temporary restraining orderwithout notice to the adverse party only if there are specificfacts in an affidavit or complaint that show “immediate andirreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movantbefore the adverse party can be heard,” and the movantcertifies “in writing any efforts made to give notice and thereasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must make a“clear showing” that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits;(2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absenceof preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in itsfavor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winterv. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22 (2008). Apreliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that mayonly be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff isentitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. Further, a plaintiff must showa “relationship between the injury claimed in the motion forinjunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlyingcomplaint.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med.Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).III. Discussion1A. Plaintiff Satisfied Rule 65 Notice Requirements.*2 The Court finds that Plaintiff gave proper notice toDefendants under Rule 65(b)(1). Jeff A. Mann's Declarationstates that Mann attempted to provide notice of this Motion
Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et al, Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2to Defendant, but no substantive response was received. Dkt.No. 9-3 ¶¶ 4-6; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).In Plaintiff's Motion, Plaintiff seekS an Order enjoiningDefendant from interfering with Plaintiff's possessor, use,or occupancy of the leased recording facility (“premise”).Motion at 2. Because the claimed injury involves the allegedimproper unlawful detainer of the premise, it appears thatissuance of a TRO contemplates the existing case andcomplaint. Pac. Radiation Oncology LLC, 810 F.3d at 635.B. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction.Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established aserious question on the merits because the Court does notappear to have jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that the Court'sjurisdiction is based on Defendant's removal action pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. Motion at 9-10; Reply at 3-5; seeDkt. No. 1.Pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, “[a]court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stayproceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized byAct of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction,or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” “The mere existenceof a parallel action in state court does not rise to the levelof interference with federal jurisdiction necessary to permitinjunctive relief under the “necessary in aid of” exception.”Id. at 740. “It is [ ] clear that a federal court may enjoin thecontinued prosecution of the same case in state court after itsremoval.” Id. (emphasis added). “We note that the exceptionsto the Anti-Injunction Act must be construed narrowly anddoubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against a statecourt proceeding should be resolved in favor of permittingthe state action to proceed.” Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730,739 (9th Cir. 1987). “Unless one of the statutory exceptionsapplies, a federal injunction restraining prosecution of alawsuit in state court is absolutely prohibited.” Id. at 739-40;Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 228-29 (1972).Abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) is“essentially a jurisdictional doctrine ... [that] determine[s]when the federal courts must refrain from exercisingjurisdiction.” Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1113(9th Cir. 2005). Younger “forbids federal courts from undulyinterfering with pending state court proceedings that implicateimportant state interests.” Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v.County of Solano, 657 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2011). Afederal court may raise abstention on its own motion. Bellottiv. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 143 n.10 (1976). Abstention underYounger is required if the state proceedings are “(1) ongoing,(2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide theplaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims.”San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 145F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1998).As discussed in the Motion, the state court proceedings areongoing. Motion at 6 (stating that the unlawful detainer courtdenied Plaintiff's ex parte application to stay the proceedings).Thus, for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over this action,there must be an Anti-Injunction Act exception and theYounger abstention must not apply.*3 First, Plaintiff does not point to an Act of Congressexpressly exempting unlawful detainer actions from the Anti-Injunction Act. See generally Motion. Plaintiff contendsthat Defendant's removal provides an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. Id. at 9-10 (citing Lou, 834 F.2d at 740);Reply at 4-5 (citing Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 837 F.2d413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); then citing Quackenbush v. AllstateIns. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 714 (1996). However, none ofPlaintiff's cited cases stand for the proposition that a removalaction provides a Court with full authority to enjoin a stateunlawful detainer action. Lou, 834 F.2d at 741 (analyzingthe exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e)'s counterclaimsubsection); Seedman, 837 F.2d 414 (not addressing the Anti-Injunction Act); Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 714 (same). And,as determined by the Ninth Circuit in Lou, the mere existenceof the unlawful detainer action does not rise to the levelof interference warranting an injunction. 834 F.2d at 740.Plaintiff has not shown that the unlawful detainer actioninterferes with the Court's jurisdiction. Opposition at 11-12.Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.Second, Plaintiff asserts that the “Younger abstention isinapplicable” based on Defendant's alleged bad faith unlawfuldetainer action. Motion at 9-10; Reply at 5-6. In Younger,the Supreme Court held that there was “no suggestion that[the state] prosecution ... [was] brought in bad faith” andthus, reversed the district court's issuance of an injunction.401 U.S. at 49-50. Although landlord-tenant disputes may notinvolve important state interests, Reply at 6 (citing Loganv. U.S. Bank Nat 7 Ass'n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1167–68 (9th Cir.2013)), they are matters of state law so “an action for evictioncannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction” withouta finding of bad faith. Id.; Round Valley Indian Housing
Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et al, Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Authority v. Hunter, 907 F. Supp. 1343, 1348 (N.D. Cal. 1995)(citing Powers v. United States Postal Service, 671 F.2d 1041,1045 (7th Cir. 1982) (“[F]ederal common law of landlord andtenant does not exist.”)).Here, like Younger, the record does not support a findingof bad faith. In the Motion, Plaintiff cites to Exhibits Dthrough F, and H to contend that the unlawful detaineraction was brought in bad faith and harassment. Motion at9-10. The Exhibits, however, do not substantiate Defendant'sbad faith initiation of the unlawful detainer action. Dkt.No. 1-10. Exhibit D involves expert reports solely onthe “examination of historical documentation” and “doesnot involve visiting the site, inspecting current conditions,assessing code conformity, or conducting structural analysis.”Id. at 6-108. Exhibit E is a report summarizing the waterpressure singe damage. Id. at 110-13. Exhibit F involves amold assessment report recommending remediation. Id. at114-16. But this report was conducted on October 13, 2025—nearly six weeks after the water pressure singe accident.Id. As a result, it does not support Plaintiff's contention thatDefendant concealed defects. Motion at 9-10. And Exhibit His a summary from the Los Angeles Department of Buildingand Safety's website, indicating that the leased propertyis under investigation. Id. at 146-47. Taken together, theExhibits do not support a finding of bad faith as they donot relate to Defendant's alleged retaliatory intent. Withoutfurther showing of Defendant's giving rise to retaliatoryunlawful detainer claim, Plaintiff has not demonstrated badfaith.Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Younger is inapplicablebecause an unlawful detainer forum provides “no meaningfulopportunity to litigate complex federal due process, fraud,and habitability claims.” Motion at 10. In particular, Plaintiffasserts that an unlawful detainer action negatively affects itsdiscovery and preparation efforts. Id.; Reply at 6-7. Plaintiff,however, has already obtained expert reports and potentialwitnesses, which Plaintiff heavily cites in its Complaint andthis Motion. Notably, Plaintiff had the opportunity and didpursue a stay in the unlawful detainer action, which wasdenied on January 22, 2026. Dkt. No. 12-8; Opposition at 11,14-15.*4 Plaintiff relies on Younger and Middlesex Cnty. EthicsComm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n., 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982).Motion at 10. The Supreme Court, in those cases, favoredthe principles of comity and found that there should beabstention “unless it plainly appears that [state proceedings]would not afford adequate protection” Younger, 401 U.S. at45; Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 435 (“Noproceedings have occurred on the merits and therefore nofederal proceedings on the merits will be terminated byapplication of Younger principles. It would trivialize theprinciples of comity and federalism if federal courts failedto take into account that an adequate state forum for allrelevant issues has clearly been demonstrated to be availableprior to any proceedings on the merits in federal court.”). Insum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that unlawful detainerproceedings are wholly inadequate to adjudicate its claims.Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established that the Youngerabstention is inapplicable.The proceedings implicate important state interests—landlord-tenant disputes. See Hunter, 907 F. Supp. at 1348.Plaintiff has an adequate state forum to pursue federal claims,through his counsel. See In re Perl, 811 F.3d 1120, 1127-28(9th Cir. 2016) (finding that California courts providean adequate forum—unlawful detainer proceedings—forlandlord-tenant disputes). Through the unlawful detaineraction, Plaintiff has the opportunity to present its argumentsand defenses to avoid eviction. Thus, abstention is required.Finally, because Younger abstention is required, leave toamend the Complaint and a TRO are unwarranted. SeeSan Remo Hotel, 145 F.3d at 1103 (amendment is futilewhere Younger abstention is required); Erichsen v. County ofOrange, 677 F. App'x 379, 381 (9th Cir. 2017) (district courtproperly held Younger abstention required denial of TROapplication).Even if the Court found an exception to the Anti-InjunctionAct and the Younger abstention doctrine is inapplicable, theCourt still lacks jurisdiction over Defendant.“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and canonly hear cases where there is a valid basis for federaljurisdiction. Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107,1112 (9th Cir. 1991). One possible basis for jurisdiction isdiversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“Section 1332”).Diversity jurisdiction requires “requires complete diversityof citizenship and an amount in controversy greater than$75,000.” Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845,849 (9th Cir. 2020). Another possible basis for jurisdictionis federal question jurisdiction, which grants federal courtsjurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution,
Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et al, Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331(“Section 1331”).First, Plaintiff's Fu st Amended Complaint asserts twelve (12)causes of action—none of which involve a federal statute,regulation, or remedy. See generally Dkt. No. 1-11. Thus,there is no jurisdiction under Section 1331.Second, the record does not substantiate diversity jurisdiction.Ninth Circuit authority holds that: “A limited liabilitycompany ‘is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens,’ not the state in which it was formedor does business.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016). And a limited liability companymust allege the citizenship of its members. Id. Plaintiff'ssole member, Patrizio Moi, is domiciled in California. Dkt.No. 14-1 2. In Defendant's Notice of Removal, it statesthat it “is a Delaware limited liability company with itsprincipal place of business in California. Upon informationand belief, none of its members are citizens of Wyoming.”Dkt. No. 6. Defendant has not identified the citizenshipof its members. As such, its Notice of Removal containsdefective jurisdictional allegations. NewGen, 840 F.3d at 612(finding defective jurisdictional allegations where a limitedliability company only stated the state of incorporation andprincipal place of business without alleging the citizenship ofits members). Therefore, there is no jurisdiction under Section1332.*5 Taken together, the Court lacks jurisdiction overDefendant. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed withoutleave to amend, the TRO motion is denied, and this action isdismissed without prejudice.IV. ConclusionAccordingly, the Court does not find preliminary injunctiverelief is warranted. For the foregoing reasons, the Courthereby DENIES the Motion.IT IS SO ORDERED.___ : ___Initials of Deputy Clerk ___All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 563023Footnotes1As an initial matter, the Court notes that in Defendant's Opposition. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has filednumerous pleadings based on the same legal and factual grounds already ruled upon by the trial court in theunlawful detainer action. Opposition at 11. Defendant further claims that it believes Plaintiff's recent filings area product of Artificial Intelligence. Id. The Court notes that Plaintiff's Motion includes citations to nonexistentcases and inaccurate quotations. See Opposition at 910. As stated herein, the Court denies the Motion basedon a lack of jurisdiction. Although Defendant's contentions regarding estoppel and artificial intelligence do notdirectly center on jurisdiction, the Court will address the arguments where relevant.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access