Sahm v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 TERI KEALOHA SAHM, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00165-JHC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR A PERMANENT v. INJUNCTION 10 SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Teri Kealoha Sahm’s motion for an 15 emergency permanent injunction (the “Motion”) (Dkt. # 6). Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining 16 the enforcement of a Sheriff Eviction Notice. Having considered the submissions of the parties, 17 the Court DENIES the Motion. 18 “As a general rule, a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been 19 established and there is a threat of continuing violations.” MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, 20 Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has not established Select 21 Portfolio Servicing Inc.’s liability; she makes no argument about liability in the Motion, nor has 22 she moved for a judgment on the merits. And 23 [a] plaintiff seeking permanent injunctive relief must demonstrate: “(1) that it has 24 suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary l damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is 2 warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” 3 Amazon Content Servs. LLC vy, Kiss Libr., No. C20-1048 MJP, 2021 WL 5998412, at *6 (W.D. 4 Wash. Dec. 17, 2021) (quoting eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). 5 The Motion does not indicate that plaintiff has met any of these elements. 6 To the extent that the Motion should be considered a motion for a preliminary injunction, 4 plaintiff has similarly not established the requisite elements for such relief. See Winter v. NRDC, 8 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2009) (holding that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 9 demonstrate they are likely to succeed on the merits, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm 10 without the injunction, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that a preliminary 11 injunction is in the public interest). 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion. 13 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 14 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 15 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2022. oh. 4. Chas 17 foe. Chur John H. Chun 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24