Warner et al v. Guaranteed Rate Affinity LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jason-Oliver Warner, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Guaranteed Rate Affinity LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00049-TUC-JCH (MSA)
ORDER
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).
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
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,
Case 4:26-cv-00049-JCH-MSA Document 15 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which the Arizona Court of Appeals denied on December 18, 2025.1 To the extent Plaintiffs
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.
Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine bars federal review of state court orders).
Second, “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
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 is 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.” Id.
at 20.
Even assuming Plaintiffs have satisfied the other factors, the Court will deny the
Application because Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are likely to succeed on the
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 is concerned that it may lack jurisdiction over this action.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Application.
Accordingly,
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).
Dated this 20th day of March, 2026.
1 See https://www.appeals2.az.gov/ODSPlus/caseInfolast.cfm?caseID=135173.
Case 4:26-cv-00049-JCH-MSA Document 15 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 2