Martin v. U.S. Small Business Administration, C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-03714, Doc. 73, order staying the action (Sept. 2, 2026)

Summary

Civil Minutes - General, an Order re Order to Show Cause in Travis Edward Martin v. United States Small Business Administration, Case No. 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM, Document 73, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed September 2, 2026, before the Honorable Wesley L. Hsu. The order recounts that the court directed the plaintiff on June 2, 2026, to explain why the suit was not subject to Younger abstention. The court grants the request for judicial notice of records in the state cases, finds that the Younger abstention factors are met, and stays the action pending resolution of Martin v. Wald, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2024CUNP03282, and Wald v. Martin, et al., Case No. 2023CUPP012195. It orders the parties to submit a joint status report on the two state cases ninety (90) days from the order and every ninety (90) days thereafter.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Issuer: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Document type: Order
Date: 2026-09-02
Case: Travis Edward Martin v. United States Small Business Administration
Case number: 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM

Cite this document

“Martin v. U.S. Small Business Administration, C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-03714, Doc. 73, order staying the action (Sept. 2, 2026).” U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM, dated 2026-09-02. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/martin-v-u-s-small-business-administration-c-d-cal-no-2-26-cv-03714-do-1384cccf1a/, SHA-256 7b5eb05ad8a534d3895994cdc9d5f4f0461440e614c8fb873663341983ef6a45.

Full text

Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 1 of 9 Page ID
#:1019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Date September 2, 2026

Title Travis Edward Martin v. United States Small Business Administration

Present: The Honorable WESLEY L. HSU, United States District Judge
Claudia Garcia-Marquez None
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None None
Proceedings: ORDER RE: Order to Show Cause

On June 2, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), instructing
Plaintiff to explain why the federal suit was not subject to Younger abstention doctrine
and/or why Plaintiff’s claims are not barred as res judicata and/or collateral estoppel (as
applicable).1 (Order to Show Cause at 3, Dkt. No. 40). The Court also ordered
Defendants to file a response on a claim-by-claim basis. (Id.). On June 26, 2026,
Plaintiff filed a response. (Plaintiff’s Response, Dkt. No. 52). Defendants American
Legacy Solutions LLC, Jayson Cohen, Jayson Cohen, Elite Sound Company LLC, Elite
Sound Company, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) subsequently filed a response on July
7, 2026. (Defendants’ Response, Dkt. No. 60).2 For the reasons stated herein, the action
1
The parties do not dispute that res judicata and collateral estoppel are inapplicable to this case.
(Plaintiff’s Response at 2; see also Defendants’ Response at 2).
2
Defendants seek judicial notice on several exhibits, including: (1) a printout of the appellate
opinion known as People v. Martin; (2) a printout of the complaint, filed October 29, 2024 by
Plaintiff, in the case known as Martin v. Wald, Ventura County Superior Court Case No.
2024CUNP032821; (3) a printout of both the order denying and the initial Motion for
Preliminary Injunction filed July 14, 2025, filed by Plaintiff in the case known as Martin v.
Wald, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2024CUNP032821; (4) a printout of the register

Page 1 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 2 of 9 Page ID
#:1020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

is STAYED pending resolution of the two state cases: Martin v. Wald, Ventura Co. Sup.
Court Case No. 2024CUNP03282 and Wald v. Martin, et al., Ventura County Superior
Court, Case No. 2023CUPP012195.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this instant action on April 5, 2026. (See
generally, Complaint, Dkt. No. 1). On May 24, 2026, Plaintiff amended the Complaint

of actions in the case known a Martin v. Wald, Ventura County Superior Court Case No.
2024CUNP032821; (5) a printout of the complaint, filed August 3, 2023 by Defendants Natalie
Wald and James Wald, both as individual plaintiffs and a Guardian ad Litem for their then-four-
year-old daughter, victim of Plaintiff’s child molestation, in a case known as Wald v. Martin, et
al., Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. 2023CUPP012195; (6) a printout of a First
Amended Cross-Complaint, filed April 7 2026 by plaintiff in a case known as Wald v. Martin, et
al., Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. 2023CUPP012195, (7) a printout of the register of
actions in the case known as Wald v. Martin, et al., Ventura County Superior Court, Case No.
2023CUPP012195; (8) the Motion to Vacate June 15, 2026 Minute Order with Supporting
Request for Judicial Notice, both filed by current plaintiff Martin, in the case of Martin v. Wald,
Ventura Co. Sup. Court Case No. 2024CUNP03282; (9) the Order Striking the Third Verified
Statement Disqualifying Judge Coats in the case known as in the case of Martin v. Wald,
Ventura Co. Sup. Court Case No. 2024CUNP03282; (10) the Notice of Ruling on the Motion to
Strike current plaintiff Martin’s First Amended Cross-Complaint, in the case known as Wald v.
Martin, et al., Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. 2023CUPP012195; (11) the Motion to
Vacate Ruling of May 21, 2026 filed by current plaintiff Martin in the case known as Wald v.
Martin, et al., Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. 2023CUPP012195; (12) the Order
Striking the Eight Verified Statement, in the case known as Wald v. Martin, et al., Ventura
County Superior Court, Case No. 2023CUPP012195; and (6) a printout of the register of actions
in the case known as Wald v. Martin, et al., Ventura County Superior Court, Case No.
2023CUPP012195. (1 RJN, Dkt. Nos. 18-19, 2 RJN, Dkt. No. 61). The Court finds it
appropriate to take judicial notice of records for the state court cases. “A court may take judicial
notice of ‘matters of public record.’” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir.
2001) (citation omitted). Documents on file in federal or state courts are considered undisputed
matters of public record. Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012)
(citations omitted) (“We may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record
including documents on file in federal or state courts.”). Accordingly, the Request for Judicial
Notice of these documents is GRANTED.

Page 2 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 3 of 9 Page ID
#:1021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

alleging ten causes of action: (1) “declaratory relief”; (2) “breach of implied covenant”;
(3) “civil RICO”; (4) “civil RICO conspiracy”; (5) “breach of fiduciary duty”; and
(6) “voidable transaction”; (7) “restitution”; (8) “civil conspiracy”; and
(9) “indemnity/exoneration”; and (10) “declaratory relief re collateral, proceeds, and
traceable property” (the “First Amended Complaint”) (FAC, Dkt. No. 33).
On October 29, 2024—more than a year prior to this action, Plaintiff filed an
action, Martin v. Wald, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2024CUNP03282, in
state court. That action arises out of a business dispute related to the same businesses
identified in the First Amended Complaint and is pending before the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Ventura, and trial is currently scheduled for November
30, 2026. (Defendants’ Response at 3; see also 1 RJN, Ex. D). Defendants Natalie Wald
and James Wald also filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff on August 2, 2023, Wald v. Martin,
et al. Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2023CUPP012195, seeking damages for
the sexual abuse of their then-four-year-old daughter, which is also pending before the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over cases that would interfere with pending state court proceedings. See
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–44 (1971). The Younger abstention doctrine reflects
“a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial
proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v.
Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). The Supreme Court explained that
Younger abstention doctrine is limited to “three exceptional categories” of cases. Sprint
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588, 592 (2013). These categories include:
“(1) ‘parallel, pending state criminal proceeding[s],’ (2) ‘state civil proceedings that are

Page 3 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 4 of 9 Page ID
#:1022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

akin to criminal prosecutions,’ and (3) state civil proceedings that ‘implicate a State’s
interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.’” ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc.
v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Sprint, 134 S. Ct. at
588). The Ninth Circuit summarized when a federal court should abstain under Younger:
“In civil cases, ... Younger abstention is appropriate only when the state proceedings:
(1) are ongoing, (2) are quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve a state’s interest in
enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, (3) implicate an important state interest,
and (4) allow litigants to raise federal challenges.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 759 (citing
Sprint, 134 S. Ct. at 593–594; Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 977–78 (9th Cir.
2004)); see also Rahhiman v. Villanueva, 2023 WL 5488474, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 27,
2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 5489012 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23,
2023) (“Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) the state court proceedings are
ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state
proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims”)
(emphasis in original).3 If these threshold elements are met, federal courts “then consider
whether the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state
proceedings and whether an exception to Younger applies.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 759.
III. DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, Plaintiff contends that the Court incorrectly cited the
framework used to analyze the Younger abstention doctrine because, Plaintiff avers, that
Sprint Commuc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013) narrowed the Younger abstention
doctrine to apply under three exceptions: “ongoing state criminal prosecutions, certain

3
The Court notes that following Middlesex, some courts apply a three-factor test, whereas other
courts follow a four-factor test outlined in ReadyLink when analyzing the Younger
abstention doctrine. Because the Ninth Circuit applies a four-factor test, the Court
likewise applies the same four-factor test outlined in ReadyLink.
Page 4 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 5 of 9 Page ID
#:1023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

civil enforcement proceedings akin to criminal prosecutions, and civil proceedings
involving orders uniquely in furtherance of state courts’ ability to perform their judicial
functions.” (Plaintiff’s Response at 8). While it is true that the Younger abstention
doctrine applies to the following three circumstances: “(1) ‘parallel, pending state
criminal proceeding[s],’ (2) ‘state civil proceedings that are akin to criminal
prosecutions,’ and (3) state civil proceedings that ‘implicate a State’s interest in enforcing
the orders and judgments of its courts,’” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 759 (citing Sprint, 571
U.S. 69 at 593–594), the Ninth Circuit has explained that the Younger abstention doctrine
is appropriate when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding
implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state
proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin
or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Credit One
Bank, N.A. v. Hestrin, 60 F.4th 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Bean v. Matteucci,
986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021).4 As stated above, if these “threshold elements” are
met, district courts then consider “whether the federal action would have the practical
effect of enjoining the state proceedings and whether an exception to Younger applies.”
ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 759. The Court therefore analyzes each of these factors and
concludes each factor is met.
A. State Proceedings are Ongoing
Here, the first factor is met. There are two ongoing state actions— Martin v. Wald,
Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2024CUNP03282 and Wald v. Martin, et al.,
Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2023CUPP012195, that were “initiated before

4
As explained below, the Younger abstention doctrine applies because there are state
civil proceedings that “implicate a [s]tate’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments
of its courts.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 759.
Page 5 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 6 of 9 Page ID
#:1024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court,” and
this federal action has not “moved beyond an embryonic stage.” Credit One Bank, N.A.
v. Hestrin, 60 F.4th 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted).
B. The Proceeding Implicates Important State Interests
The second factor is likewise met. Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a
federal court cannot unduly interfere with pending state court proceedings that implicate
“important state interests.” Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,
457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). The First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Natalie
Wald threatened Plaintiff “to extract money, property, and financial benefits from him,”
in part to obtain “private-school tuition for the Wald children, travel, lodging,
entertainment…” (FAC ¶¶ 59 -60; see also id. ¶¶ 61-85). These accusations and alleged
threats are also at issue in Wald v. Martin, et al., where Defendants Natalie Wald and
James Wald seek damages for the sexual abuse of their daughter against Plaintiff.
(Defendants’ Response at 4-5). Martin v. Wald also arises from a business dispute
related to the same businesses identified in the First Amended Complaint. Here, the state
court proceedings implicate important state interests in enforcing state court orders and
discouraging piecemeal litigation. “It is [also in the interest of the state] … to discourage
piecemeal litigation.” Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976); see
also McCoy v. Beard, No. 2:14-CV-1999 JAM CKD, 2014 WL 7071222, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
Dec. 12, 2014) (“in light of principles of comity and the risk of piecemeal litigation, the
undersigned concludes that the Younger doctrine requires dismissal of this action without
prejudice”) (emphasis in original).
Here, there exists a risk of piecemeal litigation because the state court proceedings
involve some of the same parties and businesses and the same underlying facts at issue in
this federal action. Proceeding in the instant action will likely result in piecemeal

Page 6 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 7 of 9 Page ID
#:1025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

litigation as both parties race to obtain judgment in their preferred forums. Additionally,
the Plaintiff’s amended cross-complaint was ordered stricken by the state court for failure
to request leave to file the amendment. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 12-
13 (1987) (noting that the enforcement of state court judgments and orders implicates
important state interests). If the Court allows Plaintiff to proceed in raising those same
claims in this Court, the Court will in an essence permit Plaintiff to circumvent the state
court’s authority.
C. Adequate Opportunity in the State Proceedings to Raise Constitutional
Challenges
In considering the third factor, the Supreme Court has noted that “where vital state
interests are involved, a federal court should abstain ‘unless state law clearly bars the
interposition of the constitutional claims.’” Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432. “‘[T]he ...
pertinent inquiry is whether the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise
the constitutional claims …’” Id. (quoting Moore, 442 U.S. at 430). Plaintiff’s federal
claims can be raised in state court. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 741 (9th Cir. 1987)
(holding that “state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over RICO causes of action”); see
also Rubie’s LLC v. First Am. Title Co., No. 118CV01052DADSKO, 2018 WL 6419674,
at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) (observing that state courts have jurisdiction over contract
claims against the SBA). In fact, Plaintiff originally attempted to file the remaining
claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint in state court, but it was stricken without
prejudice by the state court because Plaintiff failed to request leave to amend his cross-
complaint. (Defendants’ Reply at 3, see also 2 RJN, Ex. C). The state court provided
Plaintiff with an opportunity to file a motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint
in Wald v. Martin, et al. (See 2 RJN, Ex. E). Instead of requesting leave to file an
amended cross-complaint, Plaintiff attempted, twice, to disqualify the state court judge

Page 7 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 8 of 9 Page ID
#:1026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

due to an adverse ruling. (2 RJN B, C and D). Based on the record, there is no
suggestion that the state proceedings did not afford Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to
assert his legal claims. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (federal
court should assume state procedures will afford adequate opportunity for consideration
of constitutional claims in absence of unambiguous authority to contrary).
D. Requested Relief Seeks to Enjoin or Has the Practical Effect of Enjoining the
Ongoing State Judicial Proceeding
Defendants argue that the “delay in obtaining a final judgment in the [Wald v.
Martin, et al.] means that, if this [C]ourt does not abstain, the same claims will be
litigated twice— with possibly inconsistent results.” (Defendants’ Response at 5).
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff is attempting to forum shop or avoid adverse rulings
by the state court, by filing this case in federal court. (Id. at 10). The Court agrees.
Based on review of the record, instead of seeking leave to file his amended cross-
complaint, Plaintiff attempted to disqualify the state court judge twice. (2 RJN B, C and
D). Plaintiff also attempted to disqualify the other state court judge, (2 RJN, Ex. A), and
this Court after receiving an adverse ruling, (Dkt. No. 53). Accordingly, the Court finds
that the relief sought herein would have the practical effect of at least partially enjoining
those ongoing state court proceedings.
Because the Younger abstention doctrine applies, the Court STAYS this action
pending resolution of Martin v. Wald, Ventura Co. Sup. Court Case No.
2024CUNP03282 and Wald v. Martin, et al., Ventura County Superior Court, Case No.
2023CUPP012195. “[F]ederal courts should not dismiss actions where damages are at
issue; rather, damages actions should be stayed until the state proceedings are
completed.” Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 968; ScripsAmerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Glob. LLC, 56
F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“If, in a case in which the plaintiff seeks

Page 8 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case 2:26-cv-03714-WLH-DFM Document 73 Filed 09/02/26 Page 9 of 9 Page ID
#:1027
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

damages, the court determines that the Younger abstention is appropriate, it should stay
the matter until the state court proceedings are concluded, rather than dismissing the
action.”). The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report on the two state
cases ninety (90) days from this Order, and every ninety (90) days thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 9 of 9 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

File and source

File: 73-order.pdf
Size: 188,868 bytes
SHA-256: 7b5eb05ad8a534d3895994cdc9d5f4f0461440e614c8fb873663341983ef6a45
Our copy: 73-order.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com