UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$~cxuc~~/\ Tlt dil$

Case 1:08-cv-07837-PAC Document 51 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 6 of 26 IV. Plaintiffs’ Claims and Procedural History Plaintiffs filed their complaint on September 8, 2008. Plaintiffs claim that the 25/30 Rules are expressly and impliedly preempted by two federal regulations: the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), 49 U.S.C. §§ 32901 et seq., and the Federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. Plaintiffs requested a preliminary or permanent injunction preventing the City from implementing the 25/30 Rules on October 1 or, alternatively, summary judgment on their preemption claim. 7 As indicated in footnote 1, the Defendants agreed to delay implementation of the 25/30 Rules until November 1, 2008, so that the parties and the Court would have sufficient time to brief and consider the matter. (See September 15, 2008 Order (“Sept. 15 Order”) 3 ¶ 1.) I. Preliminary Injunction Standard DISCUSSION To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief, as well as either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; or (2) “sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.” Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F. 2d 273, 275 (2d Cir. 1985) (citing Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co. Corp., 719 F.2d 42, 45 (2d Cir. 1983)). Where a party seeks to enjoin government action “taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme, however, the moving party cannot resort to the ‘fair ground for litigation’ standard, but is required to demonstrate irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits.” Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 473 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). Since the TLC is a 7 Plaintiffs’ complaint also alleges that the TLC 25/30 Rules violate N.Y. C.P.L.R. Article 78, but Plaintiffs have not moved for relief on this claim. Accordingly, the Court does not consider the issue. 6
Case 1:08-cv-07837-PAC Document 51 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 7 of 26 government agency acting in the public interest, Plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits. Irreparable harm “means injury for which a monetary award cannot be adequate compensation.” Jayaraj v. Scappini, 66 F.3d 36, 39 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979)). Additionally, the “[i]rreparable harm must be shown by the moving party to be imminent, not remote or speculative.” Reuters, Ltd. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 903 F.2d 904, 907 (2d Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs argue that they satisfy the preliminary injunction standards: (1) they will suffer irreparable harm because they will incur financial damage under the 25/30 Rules and will be unable to recoup those damages through a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) they are likely to succeed on the merits because the 25/30 Rules are preempted by federal law, and the City does not fall within the scope of the applicable exemptions. The Court first examines Plaintiffs’ standing to bring a claim under the Supremacy Clause, and then discusses Plaintiffs’ claims on irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits. II. Plaintiffs’ Standing to Sue While Defendants suggest 8 that Plaintiffs lack standing (see Oct. 17, 2008 Oral Argument Tr. (“Oral Arg. Tr.”) 18:19-19:05; Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition (“Def. Mem.”) 13 n.10), Plaintiffs clearly have standing. The Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, provides a plaintiff with a cause of action to seek injunctive relief from allegedly preempted state action. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 96 n.14 (1983) (“A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the 8 This issue has not been fully briefed by the parties but was addressed in a footnote in Defendants’ response brief and by Defendants at oral argument. 7
Page 1 and 2: Case 1:08-cv-07837-PAC Document 51
Page 5: Case 1:08-cv-07837-PAC Document 51
Page 15 and 16: The DOT has delegated the responsib

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?