L.F. et al v. Lake Washington School District #414

Filing 19

ORDER denying Plaintiff L.F.'s 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 4 5 L.F., in his individual capacity and as parent of K.S.F. (Student 1) and K.S.F. (Student 2), 6 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. C17-375 TSZ ORDER 9 LAKE WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT #414, 10 11 Defendant. 12 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for a temporary 13 restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction, docket no. 3. Having reviewed 14 all papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, plaintiff’s motion,1 the Court enters the 15 16 following order. Discussion 17 18 Both a TRO and a preliminary injunction are extraordinary remedies that are “never awarded as of right.” See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 19 20 By Minute Order entered March 16, 2017, docket no. 5, the Court separated plaintiff’s motion into one for a TRO, noted for March 27, 2017, and one for a preliminary injunction, noted for April 7, 2017. 21 Defendant, however, filed a consolidated response as to both the TRO and preliminary injunction requests, and plaintiff similarly filed a consolidated reply. The Court therefore treats plaintiff’s motion as 22 fully briefed with respect to both types of preliminary relief. 1 23 ORDER - 1 1 24 (2008). A party seeking a TRO or a preliminary injunction must establish (1) a 2 likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of 3 preliminary relief; (3) a balancing of equities tips in favor of preliminary relief; and 4 (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20; see Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John 5 D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (the standards for a TRO and a 6 preliminary injunction are equivalent). The Ninth Circuit has also articulated an 7 alternative “sliding scale” approach pursuant to which the first and third Winter factors 8 are analyzed on a continuum; under such standard, a weaker showing on the merits, 9 combined with a stronger demonstration on the balancing test, might warrant preliminary 10 injunctive relief, assuming the second and fourth Winter elements are met. Alliance for 11 the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this “sliding 12 scale” method, the movant need only raise “serious questions going to the merits,” but the 13 balance of hardships must tip “sharply” in the movant’s favor. Id. at 1131-32; see also 14 Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012). 15 Plaintiff in this matter is the father of two students attending schools in the Lake 16 Washington School District (“LWSD”). He is challenging a Communication Plan 17 imposed by LWSD in late November 2015, and modified in January 2016 and again in 18 November 2016. See Sullivan Decl. at ¶¶ 18 & 34 & Exs. 4 & 6 (docket nos. 15, 15-4, & 19 15-6); Ex. 8 to Livingston Decl. (docket no. 14-8). He contends that the Communication 20 Plan constitutes retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of his allegedly disabled children 21 and therefore violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See Compl. (docket 22 no. 1). When the Communication Plan was implemented, however, plaintiff was advised 23 ORDER - 2 1 that he could appeal the decision by filing an action within thirty days in King County 2 Superior Court, see RCW 28A.645.010, and he undisputedly failed to timely challenge 3 either the imposition of the Communication Plan or its subsequent modifications. 4 The Communication Plan has now been in effect for almost sixteen months. 5 During a substantial portion of this time, plaintiff did not take advantage of the biweekly 6 or monthly meetings with LWSD’s Directors of School Support (DSSs), namely 7 Sue Anne Sullivan and Matt Livingston, that were contemplated in the original 8 Communication Plan and its initial modification. See Sullivan Decl. at ¶¶ 38 & 43; 9 Livingston Decl. at ¶¶ 38 & 40 (docket no. 14). As subsequently modified, the 10 Communication Plan eliminated periodic meetings between plaintiff and the DSSs, and it 11 currently envisions that plaintiff will voice his concerns solely via e-mail to the DSSs on 12 a monthly basis, during the last school week of the month. Rather than appealing the 13 Communication Plan as modified in early November 2016, plaintiff commenced this 14 action in March 2017 and seeks as preliminary relief an order enjoining LWSD from 15 enforcing the Communication Plan. 16 The Court is persuaded that plaintiff has not met his burdens of establishing either 17 a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits, of showing 18 a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, or of demonstrating 19 that a balancing of equities tips in favor of preliminary relief or that an injunction is in the 20 public interest. Plaintiff has simply not provided the quantum of evidence of animus or 21 retaliatory intent or identified the type of emergent situation that might justify the grant of 22 an extraordinary remedy like a TRO or a preliminary injunction. 23 ORDER - 3 1 Conclusion 2 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order 3 and/or a preliminary injunction, docket no. 3, is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated this 28th day of March, 2017. 6 A 7 8 Thomas S. Zilly United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?