Automotive Finance Corporation v. Elshan Bayramov, an individual

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1075
AUTOMOTIVE FINANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELSHAN BAYRAMOV, an individual,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
CASPIAN AUTO HOUSE INC., d/b/a Caspian Auto Motors; CERTIFIED AUTO
DEAL INC., d/b/a Certified Auto Deal; AUTOLINE OF VA INC., a Virginia
corporation; EAE AUTO MOTORS INC., a Virginia corporation; BABAK M.
BAYRAMOV,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01679-CMH-LRV)
Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024
Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Elshan Bayramov, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas J. Gehrig, BEAN, KINNEY & KORMAN,
PC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Elshan Bayramov appeals the district court’s order granting Automotive Finance
Corporation’s (“AFC”) motion for a preliminary injunction (“PI”) in AFC’s action against
multiple car dealerships and two individual defendants, one of whom is Bayramov. AFC
moves to dismiss the appeal, asserting that Bayramov lacks standing to appeal the PI
because AFC did not assert a PI claim against him. We deny AFC’s motion to dismiss.
See Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333 (1980) (“[A] party aggrieved
by . . . order of a district court may exercise the statutory right to appeal therefrom.”); cf.
McLaughlin v. Pernsley, 876 F.2d 308, 313 (3d Cir. 1989) (finding no standing to appeal
where PI “d[id] not directly or indirectly restrain [party] from the performance of any act”
(emphasis added)).
We have therefore reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in granting the PI. See Frazier v. Prince George’s Cnty., Md., 86 F.4th
537, 543 (4th Cir. 2023) (providing standard of review and explaining that, “[t]o obtain the
extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish . . . that he’s likely
to succeed on the merits[,] . . . that he’s likely to suffer irreparable harm if preliminary
relief isn’t granted[,] . . . that the balance of equities favors him[,] and . . . that an injunction
is in the public interest” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. Auto. Fin. Corp. v. Bayramov, No. 1:23-cv-01679-CMH-LRV (E.D.
Va. Jan. 5, 2024).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --