United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
JAYAKRISHNAN K. NAIR, et al., Plaintiffs,
CHANNA COPELAND, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY
J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Application for Ex
Parte TRO (Dkt. No. 40). Having reviewed the briefing, all
related exhibits and declarations, and relevant portions of
the record, the Court rules as follows:
ORDERED that the request for an ex parte TRO is
Court considers four factors in examining Plaintiffs'
request for a TRO: (1) likelihood of success on the merits,
(2) likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of
equities, and (4) the public interest. Winter v. Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Mandatory injunctions, requiring an affirmative act from the
nonmoving party rather than a cessation of conduct, present
substantial challenges for the Court and the parties, and
should be denied unless the facts and the law clearly favor
the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of S. California,
13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiffs' third attempt to obtain an ex parte
restraining order against Defendants. As in previous
attempts, they seek mandatory (as opposed to prohibitive)
relief. The standard for such relief is extraordinarily high;
as in their previous attempts, Plaintiffs fall far short of
the required levels of proof.
requested relief takes several forms; they seek:
1. Authorization to make travel arrangements to return Omana
Thankamma back to India;
2. An order prohibiting Defendants Copeland, Harborview and
the Department of Social and Health Services
(“DSHS”) from interfering with family visits with
3. A return of “[a]ny and all assets marshalled from
Plaintiffs” by Defendants;
4. Rescission of a King County Superior Court judgment
assessing attorney fees against Plaintiffs.
Dkt. No. 42, Proposed Order at 1.
first three requests seek intervention by this Court in the
ongoing guardianship proceeding concerning Omana Thankamma in
King County. As this Court has made clear previously
(see Dkt. No. 29, Order on Motion to Terminate
Guardianship), Plaintiffs have not established adequate
grounds for the intervention of a federal court in an ongoing
state court proceeding. Additionally, it appears from the
record that the parties in the state court proceedings have
been directed to collaborate in the repatriation of Omana
Thankamma; the intervention of an additional authority in
that process is doubly unwarranted.
late-breaking development, following the filing of this third
ex parte application for TRO, Plaintiff Jayakrishnan
Nair filed an “Emergency Declaration” with
attached exhibits indicating that his mother had recently
been admitted to the ICU at Harborview. (Dkt. No. 45.)
Although the Court regrets this unfortunate turn of events,
it does not change the analysis above or alter the
impropriety of this federal court interfering in an ongoing
state proceeding. The Court notes that, in reading the letter
from the Guardian's attorney (Dkt. No. 45-1, Exhibit A),
it is apparent that Plaintiffs have it within their power (by
following the state court orders and cooperating with the
DSHS authorities, the ...