Darren Michael Brin v. King County et al.

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DARREN MICHAEL BRIN, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-01498-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 KING COUNTY et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Darren Michael Brin’s motion 14 for an emergency temporary restraining order to stay an “eviction, displacement, or 15 property disposal action” scheduled to take place tomorrow—May 2, 2026. Dkt. No. 16 2 at 1. Brin states that he has been displaced and living in a hotel for the last 113 17 days, that his funds for temporary housing exhaust today, and that tomorrow 18 Defendants will carry out a writ of execution against his property. Id. He seeks ex 19 parte relief— relief issued without notice to Defendants before they have a chance 20 to respond. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) allows a court to issue a TRO 22 without notice to the adverse party only if the movant provides “specific facts in an 23 1 affidavit or a verified complaint” demonstrating “that immediate and irreparable 2 injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be

3 heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The movant must also certify in 4 writing “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be 5 required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). The Local Civil Rules reinforce this rule, 6 noting that motions for TROs “without notice to and an opportunity to be heard by 7 the adverse party are disfavored and will rarely be granted.” LCR 65(b)(1). 8 Brin’s motion fails to meet this heightened standard. He states that

9 Defendants are aware of the “invalidity of the writ,” but that is not the same as 10 notice of this motion. Dkt. No. 2 at 3. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). On this record, the 11 Court does not find that Brin’s case falls within those “very few circumstances 12 justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 13 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 14 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (preliminary injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy 15 never awarded as of right”).

16 Even setting aside the notice deficiency, Brin’s motion does not establish the 17 elements required for preliminary injunctive relief. He offers conclusory assertions 18 that the writ of execution is “invalid” but does not identify the legal basis for that 19 claim, demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, or explain how the alleged 20 harm is irreparable rather than compensable through damages. See Winter, 555 21 U.S. at 20.

22 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED 23 without prejudice. Dkt. No. 2. 1 2 Dated this 1st day of May, 2026.

3 a Jamal N. Whitehead 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23