United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Honorable David C. Nye United States District Court
August 11, 2017, Plaintiff, Gregory Lapin, filed a motion for
Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction in this case
(Dkt. 4). This order requested the Court to enjoin the
defendants from prosecuting an eviction currently pending in
the First District Court of Kootenai County, Idaho (Case No.
CV-2017-2918). Because the order for preliminary injunction
was extremely time sensitive, the Court ordered that
Defendants respond immediately so that the Court could make a
determination before the eviction proceedings were set to
take place in State Court. Defendants filed a brief in
opposition to Plaintiff's Motion on August 17, 2017.
Having reviewed the record, the Court now issues the
following decision DENYING the Motion.
contends that he will be irreparably harmed if a preliminary
injunction is not granted at this time. The Court often
enters a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo
pending a determination of the action on the merits.
Larry P. v. Riles, 502 F.2d 963, 965 (9th Cir.
1974). However, this case is somewhat unique in that Lapin is
asking the Federal Court for a preliminary injunction to stop
the State Court proceeding.
underlying facts of the case are not relevant at this time,
but the procedural history, while not lengthy, is relevant to
the Court's decision.
On April 11, 2017, Defendants filed their complaint against
Lapin in State Court.
On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of removal to
Federal Court. Plaintiff then filed an Answer, Counterclaim,
Third Party Complain and Jury Demand in that case.
On May 25, 2017, Judge Edward J. Lodge remanded the case
filed in Federal Court to State Court.
On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Answer and Affirmative
Defenses in State Court but did not raise any counterclaims
or third party claims as he had in his federal case.
On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant suit in Federal
case, it appears that Lapin is trying to use a federal cause
of action to control his state cause of action. This is not
appropriate - one court will not substitute or impose its
jurisdiction on the other except under limited circumstances.
recent case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the
Court held that
In exceptional circumstances, a federal court may decline to
exercise its “virtually unflagging obligation” to
exercise federal jurisdiction, in deference to pending,
parallel state proceedings. Such a decision “rest[s] on
considerations of wise judicial administration, giving regard
to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive
disposition of litigation.” The decision “does
not rest on a mechanical checklist, but on a careful
balancing of the important factors as they apply in a given
case, with the balance heavily weighted in favor of the