Lyall v. Zieve et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The Court DENIES Lyalls motion for a TRO without prejudice. Signed by Judge Jamal N Whitehead. (KRA)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

MARTA D. LYALL,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-02148-JNW
ORDER

v.
LES ZIEVE; MITCHELL SAMBERG;
DOOJIN CHUNG; TRUMAN CAPITAL
HOLDINGS, LLC; JOHN WILSON,
Defendants.

13
14

Pro se Plaintiff Marta D. Lyall filed this action on December 26, 2024,

15

seeking injunctive relief and damages for “Defendants’ fraudulent and procedurally

16

improper actions, which threaten irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s property rights and

17

constitutional protections.” Dkt. No. 7 at 1; see also Dkt. Nos. 1 (Application to

18

Proceed in Forma Pauperis), 12 (Amended Complaint). Lyall alleges that

19

Defendants engaged in a “deliberate scheme to undermine [her] ownership of the

20

real property” located in Shoreline, Washington. Dkt. No. 12 at 1.

21

Lyall now moves for a temporary restraining order (TRO), aiming to “prohibit

22

Defendants from… selling, transferring, or encumbering” the Shoreline property,

23

and “[r]equir[ing] Defendant John Wilson, in his official capacity as King County
ORDER - 1

1

Assessor, to… refrain from making any further changes to the title of the Property”

2

until this case is resolved. Dkt. No. 8 at 3. She also seeks immediate “rever[sion] [of]

3

the title of the Property back to [her] name until the title dispute is resolved[.]” Id.

4

To obtain a TRO, the moving party must serve all motion papers on the

5

nonmoving party unless the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)—issuance of a TRO

6

without notice—are met. LCR 65(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). The Court may issue

7

a TRO without notice to the adverse party only if the moving party shows that

8

“immediate and irreparable injury” will occur before the adverse party can be heard

9

and the movant certifies “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it

10

should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). “Motions for temporary restraining

11

orders without notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the adverse party are

12

disfavored and will rarely be granted.” LCR 65(b)(1).

13

Lyall includes a “Certification of Service” in her TRO motion, stating that “on

14

December 30, 2024, [she] served a copy of this motion and exhibits on all

15

parties/counsel of record[.]” Dkt. No. 8 at 4. But Lyall’s “Certification of Service” is

16

signed and dated December 27, 2024—days before she allegedly effected service. Id.

17

This discrepancy casts doubt on whether she effected service as stated.

18

This is not the only problem with Lyall’s purported service. She states that

19

she served “a copy of this motion and exhibits” on “Attorney Thomas B. Pierce,

20

attorney, who works for Les Zieve[.]” Dkt. No. 8 at 4. Yet, Lyall does not provide

21

Pierce’s contact information, as required by the Local Rules. See LCR 65(b)(1) (“The

22

motion must also include contact information for the opposing party’s counsel or for

23

an unrepresented party.”). Finally, Lyall gives no indication that her service
ORDER - 2

1

attempts have resulted in actual notice, such as a return email or response from

2

any of the Defendants acknowledging receipt in some way. Due to these deficiencies,

3

the Court finds that Lyall has failed to prove notice in compliance with Rule 65.

4

Lyall does not address the standard for issuance of a TRO without notice, and

5

on this record, the Court does not find that her case falls within those “very few

6

circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO.” See Reno Air Racing

7

Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). Lyall alleges irreparable

8

harm in conclusory fashion, asking the Court to prohibit any future sales, transfers,

9

or encumbrances of the Shoreline property. Dkt. No. 8 at 3. But she does not point

10

to any such transactions on the near-term horizon. As a result, she fails to establish

11

that the requested relief is necessary to avert some “immediate threatened injury.”

12

See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

13

Moreover, the title transfer to Defendant Truman Capital took place in 2023. This

14

motion arrives over a year later. Thus, the Court finds no basis for emergency

15

judicial action before Defendants may be heard in opposition. See Abdel-Malak v.

16

Doe, No. EDCV 20-00322-CJC (KKx), 2020 WL 5775818, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20,

17

2020) (denying TRO sought by pro se plaintiff for failure to satisfy Rule 65(b)’s

18

“strict requirements”).

19

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Lyall’s motion for a TRO without prejudice.

20

Dated this 6th day of January, 2025.

a

21

Jamal N. Whitehead
United States District Judge

22
23
ORDER - 3