N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KIRK R . ER IC HSEN, a

n individual; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C OUNTY OF OR

A N GE; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55763 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-02357-JAK-SS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronstadt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, TALLM AN, a nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nts c ha l le nge the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of the ir e x pa rte a pplic ation for a t e m pora ry re stra ining orde r (“ TR O” ) in whic h the y sought to (1) enjoin sta

te
c ourt c hild depe nde nc y

proc e e dings a

nd the e nforc e m e nt of re late d prote c tive



# FIL ED
FEB 17 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c ustody

and a rre st wa rrants, a nd (2) sta y a ll disc ove ry

in fe de ra l c ourt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1292(a )(1), and we AFFIRM
. First, we note tha

t the distric t c ourt prope rly de te rm ine d Appe lla

nts fa ile d to
m e e t the thre shold re quire m e nt for e x pa rte re lie f be c a

use the y did not e sta

blish the y we re “ without fa

ult in c re ating the c risis tha t re quire s e x pa

rte re lie f.” Mission Pow e r Eng’g C

o. v . C o nt’l C as. C o. , 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C .D. C a l. 1995). The distric t c ourt a lso c orre c tly c onc lude d that Appe lla

nts’ re que ste d re lie f
wa s proc e dura lly

im prope r be c a

use Appe lla

nts we re e s se ntia l ly

using the ir
a pplic ation for a TR O to c ha l le nge the m a gistra t e judge ’ s ruling tha

t Kirk a nd Kry sta l Eric hse n (the “ Eric hse n s” ) we re re quire d to a ppe ar for the ir de positions. Se c ond, the distric t c ourt did not err in de ny i ng the a p plic ation for a

TR O on the b a sis of the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc trine and Younge r a b ste ntion. The re is som e que stion a s to whe the r a ll of the sta te c ourt proc e e dings ha d c onc l ude d whe n Appe l la n ts file d this a c tion in fe de ra l c ourt. To thee xte nt tha t the sta te c ourt proc e e dings we re ongoing, the distric t c ourt prope rly he ld tha t Younge r a

b ste ntion
re quire d de nia l of the TR O a p plic ation. Se e San J

ose Silic on Valle

y C hambe r of C omme rc e Politic al Ac tion C o mm. v . C

ity of San J ose , 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th C ir. 2008). Howe ve r, to the e xte nt tha t the sta te c ourt proc e e dings ha d c onc lude d, the n the Rook e r-Fe ldman doc trine pre c lude d distric t c ourt re vie w be c a use
2Appe l la

n ts we re “ sta

te -c ourt lose rs c om

pla i ning of injurie s c a

use d by sta te -c ourt judgm e nts re nde re d be fore t he [fe d e ra l] distric t c ourt proc e e d ings c om m e nc e d,”
and we re “ inviting district c o urt re vie w a nd re je c tion of those

judgm e nts.” Ex

x onMobile C orp. v . Saudi Basic

Indus. C orp. , 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); s e e Lac y -C urry v . Alame da C

t y . Soc . Se rv

s. Age nc y , 262 F. App’ x 9, 10 (9th C ir. 2007). Fina lly , we de c line to e xe rc i se pe nda n t jurisdic tion ove r the se p ara te que stion of whe the r the d i stric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion in orde ring the Eric hse ns to a

ppe ar in pe rson for the ir de positions. The distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the T R O a

pplic ation is not inextric a bly inte rtwine d with its order re ga rding the Eric hse ns’ a

ppe aranc e at the ir de positions. Me le ndre s v . Arpaio , 695 F.3d 990, 996 (9th C i r. 2012). Nor doe s the issue of whe the r the Eric hse ns we re re quire d to
a ppe ar a t the ir de positions “ c a ll[] into que stion thedistric t c ourt’ s authority to rule ” on the Eric hse ns’ a

pplic ation for a

TR O. Id. at 996–97 (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). AFFIRM E D.

3