Ma v. Densmore

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 ROLAND MA, 11

Plaintiff, 12 Case No. 2:20-cv-1355-RAJ v. 13 ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ESTHER PARK DENSMORE and 14 RESTRAINING ORDER WASHINGTON CARE SERVICES, 15 Defendants, 16 v. 17 WALDEN UNIVERSITY, LLC., 18 Third-Party Defendant. 19 20 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Temporary 21 Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. # 92. Having considered the 22 submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the 23 Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. 24 Although Plaintiff Roland Ma refers to the instant motion for injunctive relief as 25 his “second,” Dkt. # 92 at 1, it is in fact his third, Dkt. ## 2, 48. The Court already 26 denied the previous two. Dkt. ## 36, 68. The same day that this Court denied his true 27 second motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), Mr. Ma filed a notice of appeal 1 for the second denial order. Dkt. ## 68, 73. 2 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it 3 confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control 4 over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685, 5 694-95 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 6 56, 58 (1982)). The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant motion. The Court no 7 longer has control over “those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Trulis, 107 8 F.3d at 694. What is on appeal is this Court’s previous order denying Mr. Ma’s second 9 motion for a TRO. The instant motion (Mr. Ma’s third motion for a TRO) seems to share 10 the same “aspects of the case” as his second motion for a TRO. 11 Granted, it is unclear what Mr. Ma bases his instant motion on. The motion cites 12 only generic preliminary injunction rule statements, most of which are from decisions not 13 in this circuit or district. Dkt. # 92. The motion does not present any new facts that have 14 arisen since Mr. Ma’s previous TRO requests that might now entitle him to relief— 15 indeed, the motion cites no facts from this case at all. Id. The Court must presume that 16 the motion, assuming it raises any grounds for relief at all, is based on the same 17 complaint and sets of facts as the previous two motions for a TRO. Under that 18 assumption, the “aspects of the case” raised by this motion are identical to the “aspects of 19 the case” currently on appeal, over which the Court currently does not have jurisdiction. 20 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Second Motion for 21 Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. # 92. 22 23 DATED this 15th day of December, 2020.

24 A 25

26 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 27 United States District Judge