Grundstein v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying pltf's 3 Motion for TRO with notice or preliminary injunction with expedited hearing by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ROBERT GRUNDSTEIN,
No. C12-569RSL
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

vs.
WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER WITH NOTICE OR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
WITH EXPEDITED HEARING

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s request for a temporary
restraining order with notice or a preliminary injunction with expedited hearing. Dkt. #
3; see Dkt. ## 1, 2. Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin the Washington Supreme Court
from taking any action to remove his license to practice as an attorney in Washington.
Dkt. # 3. The Court DENIES the motion as premature.
In a previous matter, the Court dismissed a nearly identical claim brought by
Plaintiff based on the application of the Younger abstention doctrine. Grundstein v.
Wash. State Bar Ass’n, No. C11-692RSL, Docket ## 23, 29 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 2011)
(relying on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40–41 (1971)). As the Court stated, “Absent
‘extraordinary circumstances,’ federal courts must abstain from enjoining pending state
judicial proceedings if the proceedings implicate important state interests and afford
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - 1

1

plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate his federal claims.” Id. (citing Middlesex

2

County Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). As state

3

proceedings remain ongoing in this matter, the Court does not see why Younger does not

4

continue to require abstention.

5

In any case, aside from the problem of Plaintiff’s “likelihood of success on the

6

merits,” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), the Court finds

7

that the motion is premature. “The notice required by Rule 65(a) before a preliminary

8

injunction can issue implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity

9

to oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition.” Granny Goose Foods,

10

Inc., v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 432 n.7 (1974).

11

And, in the present case, Plaintiff has yet to serve a summons or complaint on any of the

12

Defendants. There is thus no reasonable way for the Court to contact the Defendants to

13

set up a briefing schedule or arrange a hearing.

14

Rather than leaving the matter languishing on the docket, the Court thinks it more

15

expedient to deny the motion at this time for lack of Rule 65(a) notice to the Defendants,

16

see id., without prejudice to his ability to bring it again at a reasonable time after he has

17

properly served each Defendant. This course of action will also allow Plaintiff to

18

address the looming Younger issue that doomed his prior action.

19
20

DATED this 11th day of April, 2012.

21
22
23

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

24
25
26

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - 2