Khanlarova v. King County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ILYANA KHANLAROVA, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01115-JHC 8

ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13

14 The Court submits this order to explain the basis for its ruling at Dkt. # 7. 15 Pro se Plaintiff, Ilyana Khanlarova, brings this action against King County Superior 16 Court, a judge of that court, and an administrator there. Dkt. # 2. 17 1. The motion fails for lack of notice 18 Plaintiff requests emergency injunctive relief. Id. But she does not provide any 19 indication that she notified Defendants about the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1); LCR 20 65(b)(1). Nor does she provide a sworn statement to explain that lack of notice should be 21 excused. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1); LCR 65(b)(1). Lack of notice here is an independent 22 ground for denial of the motion. 23

24 l 2. The motion does not show a likelihood of success on the merits 2 The legal standards for a preliminary injunction and a TRO are “substantially identical.” 3 || Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). To 4 obtain a TRO, a plaintiff must show that (1) they are “likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) they 5 are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of” a TRO; (3) “the balance of equities tips 6 [their] favor”; and (4) a TRO “1s in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 7 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def: Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)) 8 (called the Winter factors). The purpose of a TRO “is to preserve the status quo and prevent 9 irreparable harm[.]” Jones v. H.S.B.C. (USA), 844 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1100 (S.D. Cal. 2012). 10 The motion does not explain how Plaintiff can bring her claims against the Superior 11 Court, a judge, and an administrator—much less how she is likely to prevail on the merits against 12. || them. This is also an independent and separate ground for denial of the motion. 13 3. Conclusion 14 Given the foregoing, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunctive 15 Relief, Dkt. # 2, and struck as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Same Day Emergency Oral 16 || Argument/Hearing with a Judge, Dkt. # 5. 17 Dated this 31“ day of July, 2024. 18 M. Chu

20 John H. Chun United States District Judge 21 22 23 24