Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nair v. Copeland

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

December 31, 2019

JAYAKRISHNAN K. NAIR, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CHANNA COPELAND, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

          MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

         The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Application for Ex Parte TRO (Dkt. No. 40). Having reviewed the briefing, all related exhibits and declarations[1], and relevant portions of the record, the Court rules as follows:

         IT IS ORDERED that the request for an ex parte TRO is DENIED.

         Discussion

         The 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).

         This is 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.

         Plaintiffs' 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 Omana Thankamma;
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.

         The 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.

         In a 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.