Automotive Finance Corporation v. Elshan Bayramov

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-1075
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1075 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1075

AUTOMOTIVE FINANCE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELSHAN BAYRAMOV, an individual,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

CASPIAN AUTO HOUSE INC., d/b/a Caspian Auto Motors; CERTIFIED AUTO DEAL INC., d/b/a Certified Auto Deal; AUTOLINE OF VA INC., a Virginia corporation; EAE AUTO MOTORS INC., a Virginia corporation; BABAK M. BAYRAMOV,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01679-CMH-LRV)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1075 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

Elshan Bayramov, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas J. Gehrig, BEAN, KINNEY & KORMAN, PC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1075 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Elshan Bayramov appeals the district court’s order granting Automotive Finance

Corporation’s (“AFC”) motion for a preliminary injunction (“PI”) in AFC’s action against

multiple car dealerships and two individual defendants, one of whom is Bayramov. AFC

moves to dismiss the appeal, asserting that Bayramov lacks standing to appeal the PI

because AFC did not assert a PI claim against him. We deny AFC’s motion to dismiss.

See Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333 (1980) (“[A] party aggrieved

by . . . order of a district court may exercise the statutory right to appeal therefrom.”); cf.

McLaughlin v. Pernsley, 876 F.2d 308, 313 (3d Cir. 1989) (finding no standing to appeal

where PI “d[id] not directly or indirectly restrain [party] from the performance of any act”

(emphasis added)).

We have therefore reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in granting the PI. See Frazier v. Prince George’s Cnty., Md., 86 F.4th

537, 543 (4th Cir. 2023) (providing standard of review and explaining that, “[t]o obtain the

extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish . . . that he’s likely

to succeed on the merits[,] . . . that he’s likely to suffer irreparable harm if preliminary

relief isn’t granted[,] . . . that the balance of equities favors him[,] and . . . that an injunction

is in the public interest” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order. Auto. Fin. Corp. v. Bayramov, No. 1:23-cv-01679-CMH-LRV (E.D.

Va. Jan. 5, 2024).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1075 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED