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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

STAR NORTHWEST, INC., et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY OF KENMORE, et al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C05-2133P

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR CLARIFICATION OF STATUS

OF STIPULATED PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION OR TO RESTORE

INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Star Northwest's Motion to clarify the status of

the parties' stipulated injunction in this matter or to restore the injunction maintaining the status quo in

this matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) during the pendency of a possible appeal. (Dkt. No. 109). 

Having reviewed the parties' briefing on this matter and the file in this case, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff's Motion to extend or restore the injunction in this matter. 

This case was filed in this Court on December 28, 2005, when Plaintiff Star Northwest sought

a temporary restraining order to prevent the closure of the Kenmore Lanes bowling alley and

cardroom pursuant to an ordinance enacted by the Kenmore City Council on December 19, 2005. 

After the temporary restraining order ("TRO") was granted to preserve the status quo on December

29, 2005, the parties sought several extensions of the TRO in order to conduct discovery and

complete briefing on the preliminary injunction issue. The parties entered into a stipulated preliminary

injunction to preserve the status quo during the pendency of this case, "until a final determination is

made by this Court on the merits of the action, either by summary judgment or by trial." (Dkt. No. 64

at 1).

Case 2:05-cv-02133-MJP Document 116 Filed 09/18/06 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

The Court has now issued orders addressing the merits of this case and dismissing the claims

that were properly before the federal court. The remainder of the case has been remanded to state

court. (Dkt. Nos. 94, 99, 103, & 115). The language of the parties' agreement only extends the

preliminary injunction "until a final determination is made by this Court on the merits. . ." (Dkt. No. 64

at 1, emphasis added). The Court has rendered its decisions and disposed of this case. For this

reason, the Court views the agreement between the parties as dissolved. Defendants' brief in

opposition to Plaintiff's motion only bolsters this conclusion. 

Likewise, the Court finds that an injunction during the pendency of any appeal in this case is

not appropriate. The Court has determined that Defendants have a greater likelihood of success on

the merits of this case and that the balance of hardships tips in Defendants' favor. The City is entitled

to decide that it does not want gambling within its city limits and to enforce that decision. 

Additionally, the City's ordinance does not foreclose the use of Plaintiff's property for other lucrative,

non-gambling purposes. Taking all of these factors into account, the Court must DENY Plaintiff's

motion to restore the preliminary injunction in this matter during the pendency of any appeal in this

case.

The clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: September 18, 2006

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02133-MJP Document 116 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2