Peden v. Catholic Community Services of Western Washington, et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 4 Emergency Motion for Injunction signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail and via voicemail message

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 4 5 6 Case No. C17-1610RSM CRAIG PEDEN, 7 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION 9 v. 10 11 CATHOLIC CHARITIES, 12 Defendant. 13 14 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunction, 15 16 which the Court construes as a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). Dkt. #4. 17 Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff Craig Peden appears to move the Court for a TRO against 18 Defendant to restrain his eviction from a property located in Everett, WA.1 Dkt. #3, Attachment. 19 The entirety of Plaintiff’s hand-written motion reads: 20 Motion For Injunction Required Immediately Irreparable Harm Termination of Lease and eviction if Catholic Charities does not pay the rent Order Required [Illegible]/Written to Request The Injunction 21 22 23 24 25 Dkt. #4. 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff uses a Seattle address in conjunction with his Complaint and motion. See Dkt. #3. ORDER - 1 1 Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that Catholic Charities agreed to pay his rent for October 2 through the end of his lease in December 2017. Dkt. #3. He also appears to allege some type of 3 retaliation and discrimination, although he has not alleged that he is a member of any protected 4 class, nor has he provided the details of such allegations. See id. Plaintiff apparently received a 5 Notice of Belief of Abandonment related to an apartment in Everett, which also notes that his 6 7 lease will be terminated on October 31, 2017, unless he informs the manager of his intent not to 8 abandon his property, an address at which he can be served with certified mail, and his current 9 rent due. Dkt. #3, Attachment. The circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s allegations and request 10 are not apparent from the Complaint or the motion itself. 11 In order to succeed on a motion for temporary restraining order, the moving party must 12 13 show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving 14 party in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that a balance of equities tips in the favor of the 15 moving party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 16 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). The Ninth Circuit 17 18 employs a “sliding scale” approach, according to which these elements are balanced, “so that a 19 stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild 20 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 21 22 The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence to warrant granting a TRO in this case. First, it is not clear that Defendant has been served by Plaintiff with the instant 23 24 Motion or even his lawsuit. See Local Rule 65(b)(1) (“Motions for temporary restraining orders 25 without notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the adverse party are disfavored and will 26 rarely be granted.”). 27 28 ORDER - 2 1 Second, even if Defendant had received notice, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 2 meet his burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits in this case. Indeed, 3 Plaintiff provides no legal argument in support of his position, and the Court cannot actually 4 determine the basis of his claims. 5 Given these deficiencies, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for 6 7 8 Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. #4) is DENIED. DATED this 30 day of October, 2017. 9 10 A 11 12 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER - 3

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?