United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
RANDY R. HAHN, PERSONALLY AND AS PARENT AND JOINT LEGAL CUSTODIAN ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILDREN, P.R.H., J.J.H, AND J.C.H., Plaintiffs,
STATE OF UTAH; SEAN D. REYES, ATTORNEY GENERAL; THE HONORABLE RYAN HARRIS, 3RDDISTRICT COURT JUDGE; THE HONORABLE KIM M. LUHN, 3RDDISTRICT COURT COMMISSIONER; LIESA STOCKDALE, DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF RECOVERY SERVICES, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
Nuffer, United States District Judge
Randy R. Hahn moved for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction against Defendants State of Utah; Sean
D. Reyes, Attorney General; Third District Court Judge Ryan
Harris; Third District Court Commissioner Kim M. Luhn; and
Liesa Stockdale, Director of the Office of Recovery Services
(collectively, “State Defendants”) (“TRO
Motion”). Four days after the TRO Motion was filed,
a hearing was held to discuss the merits of Mr.
Hahn's claims. Mr. Hahn, an attorney, represented himself
and the remaining defendants were represented by counsel. The
following findings were made:
of Success on the Merits
highly likely that the case will fail based on abstention
doctrines and the requirement to give full faith and credit
to the actions of the state court without interference in
those proceedings. The federal district court should not be
involved in this issue.
also highly likely that the case will fail on immunity
also highly likely that the case will fail in its attempt to
challenge the “best interests of the child' as a
constitutionally-deficient standard. There is no support for
this novel theory advanced by Mr. Hahn, and the cases cited
in his TRO Motion and Motion for Summary
Judgment do not support his arguments.
is no evidence that Mr. Hahn would suffer irreparable harm if
the injunction is not issued because there is a fully
operational and adequate forum present and available that is
addressing Mr. Hahn's arguments. That forum is the state
there is evidence that Mr. Hahn entered into a valid
stipulation for custody of his children. Mr. Hahn does not
establish irreparable harm by stating that he now wishes to
alter the stipulation. Matters of child custody are open to
review in the state court as circumstances change.
damage that would result if the TRO Motion is granted would
be that the state proceedings, which are valid, are disrupted
and interfered with. Mr. Hahn does not face any harm that
outweighs this potential damage. Thus, the balance of harms
does not weigh in favor of an injunction.
there is another significant harm faced by issuance of an
injunction. The mother of the children, who is not a party to
this action and has not received notice, would be most
directly affected if the TRO Motion is granted. This is
extremely disturbing and weighs against the issuance of an