Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00184/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Judith R. Spielman; Thomas E.

Spielman, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Trustee Jeffrey S. Katz; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0184-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Emergency Temporary Stay Order and/or Injunction to

Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County. Doc. #10. The motion asked the

Court to stay a forcible entry and detainer action pending in state court. The Court held a

hearing on March 29, 2010, and denied the motion for the following reasons.

First, Plaintiffs failed to give notice to Defendants. Generally, a plaintiff must give

notice to the opposing party of any request for emergency injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ.

Pro. 65(b)(1)(A). Judge Teilborg’s order of February 11, 2010 advised Plaintiffs of this

requirement. At the hearing, Plaintiffs failed to show that immediate and irreparable injury

or loss would occur before the adverse party could be heard in opposition, or any other

reason notice should not be required. Id.

Second, to obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiffs must show they are likely to succeed on

the merits of their claim. American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d

1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs’ motion did not make this showing.

Case 2:10-cv-00184-JAT Document 11 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 Third, “[t]he Younger abstention doctrine, as originally articulated by the Supreme

Court, forbids federal courts from staying or enjoining pending state court proceedings.”

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations

omitted) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2283.

Plaintiffs failed to address this doctrine or show why it does not apply in this case.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency Temporary Stay Order

and/or Injunction to Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County (Doc. #10)

is denied.

DATED this 30th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00184-JAT Document 11 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2