Abuzeide v. Openroad Auto Group, Inc.
ORDER denying plaintiff's 2 Motion for TRO by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ANTHONY ABUZEIDE, Special
Administrator for the Estate of Jack Berry
Case No. C17-583 RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
OPENROAD AUTO GROUP, INC., a
Washington corporation d/b/a BELLEVUE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (“TRO”). Dkt #2. The Court has examined Plaintiff’s Motion and determined that
Plaintiff has not attached a certificate of service nor requested issuance without notice.
“Motions for temporary restraining orders without notice to and an opportunity to be
heard by the adverse party are disfavored and will rarely be granted.” LCR 65(b)(1). “The
Court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse
party or its attorney only if specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show
that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any
efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(1) (emphasis added). Unless these requirements are satisfied, “the moving party must
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - 1
serve all motion papers on the opposing party before or contemporaneously with the filing of
the motion and include a certificate of service with the motion.” LCR 65(b)(1) (emphasis
added). “Unless the Court orders otherwise, the adverse party must (1) file a notice indicating
whether it plans to oppose the motion within twenty-four hours after service of the motion, and
(2) file its response, if any, within forty-eight hours after the motion is served.” LCR 65(b)(5).
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the above procedural
requirements for a TRO and will deny this Motion on that ground alone. Although Plaintiff
moves for relief above and beyond the issuance of a TRO, the Court concludes that granting
any of the requested relief would be improper without notice to Defendant. The Court notes
that Plaintiff is free to refile this Motion after satisfying the above procedural requirements.
Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. #2) is DENIED.
(2) Plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Order on Defendant.
(3) If Defendant is served with a subsequent TRO Motion on April 14, 2017, through
April 16, 2017, the Court will extend the deadline for Defendant to file a notice
indicating whether it plans to oppose the motion to noon on April 18, 2017, and the
deadline to file a response, if any, to noon on April 19, 2017. If Defendant is served
after April 16, 2017, the deadlines to respond remain as stated in LCR 65(b)(5).
DATED this 14th day of April 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - 2
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?