Nair v. Copeland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 JAYAKRISHNAN K NAIR, et al., CASE NO. C19-1296 MJP 11 Plaintiffs, MINUTE ORDER 12 v. 13 CHANNA COPELAND, et al., 14 Defendants.

16 The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, United States District Judge: 18 Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint and Application for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order. Dkt. No. 4. The matter involves a dispute over the care of an elderly citizen of India who is already the subject of a guardianship and a Vulnerable Adult Protective Order from the King County Superior Court.

22 The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for an ex parte TRO. Because the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint are currently the subject of state court proceedings, Plaintiffs’ federal filing implicates the Colorado River Doctrine, which calls for a federal court to abstain from ruling in matters which are pending in state court. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). Although making no “merits” determination at this time, the Court will not rule on these issues, even preliminarily, without an opportunity for all sides to be heard.

6 The filing fee has been paid and summonses issued to Plaintiffs, who now bear responsibility for serving the defendants with notice of this action. Once Defendants have been served and appeared, the parties are ordered to meet, confer, and propose a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.

10 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiffs and to all counsel.

11 Filed August 20, 2019.

William M. McCool 13 Clerk of Court 14 s/Paula McNabb Deputy Clerk