Bhandary v. Ghatak

Background

Samita Bhandary, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Agradoot Ghatak, Klearnow, Corp., Asvin Srivatsangam, Sandra Vindiola, Madan Ahluwalia, and Judge Stuart Scott in his official capacity. The complaint asserted claims involving alleged civil-rights violations, conspiracy, fraud on the court, obstruction of justice, declaratory and injunctive relief, fraudulent concealment, and intentional infliction of financial harm.

Bhandary asked for a temporary restraining order barring Ghatak, his agents, and officers of the Santa Clara County Superior Court from enforcing a divorce judgment in the state-court divorce proceeding, Case No. 22FL000012. The opinion states that Bhandary and Ghatak ended their marital status on August 29, 2024, and that the Santa Clara County Superior Court entered a divorce judgment on September 18, 2024. The motion itself referred to a judgment entered on or about September 18, 2025 and marked that date “sic.”

Legal standard

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy, and the moving party must generally show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors an injunction, and that an injunction serves the public interest. A court may apply a lower merits showing when there are serious questions to be litigated and the balance of hardships sharply favors the moving party, but the other requirements still apply.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Bhandary had not shown a likelihood of success on any claim. It reasoned that federal-court interference with the state divorce proceeding would be inappropriate under the Younger abstention doctrine, a rule generally limiting federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings.

The court found that the state proceeding was ongoing because a hearing on Bhandary’s motion concerning court process and access to judicial relief was set for October 28, 2025. It also found that the proceeding implicated important state interests because California has a significant interest in determining domestic relationships and enforcing its divorce-court judgments. Finally, the court found that Bhandary had not shown that she lacked an opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in state court; the opinion states that she had already presented constitutional challenges there.

The court also found that Bhandary had not established irreparable harm or shown why the requested injunction would address the potential harms she identified, including possible loss of immigration status, separation from her U.S.-citizen child, housing deprivation, alleged retaliatory litigation and surveillance, reputational harm, and limits on her ability to work or access the courts. Because Bhandary failed to establish irreparable harm or a likelihood of success, the court did not address the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.

Disposition

Judge Beth Freeman ordered that Bhandary’s motion for a temporary restraining order was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing a noticed motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion did not resolve the underlying claims in the lawsuit or determine whether the state-court divorce judgment was valid.