United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Raul Mendez's Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 2. Also
before the Court is Mendez's Motion to Withdraw his
Motion for Default Judgment. Dkt. 12. The Court finds the
matter appropriate for decision without oral argument.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7.1. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will deny Mendez's motion for a
temporary restraining order and injunction, and grant his
motion to withdraw.
filed a complaint against Ada County and Republic Services
alleging violations of the Constitution, the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act
and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress and damage to reputation.
Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Mendez alleges that the Ada
County Commissioners unlawfully enacted Ada County Code
5-2-4-1, which requires owners of occupied properties to
maintain trash collection services and pay associated fees.
Mendez claims he has been living with his mother and is thus
not using the trash collection service. When he asked the
county to discontinue service, the county staff refused,
citing the county ordinance. Compl. ¶¶
12-19. Mendez alleges that he stopped paying for his trash
services and the county began certifying the collection fees
to his property tax rolls. Compl. at 33, 37.
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction, Mendez asks the Court to require Ada County to 1)
remove the trash fees that have been certified to his
property tax roll, 2) stop certifying delinquent payments for
his trash bills to his tax rolls, and 3) stop making trash
service mandatory. Pl. 's Mot. ¶¶ 1-3.
Mendez also seeks wavier of the requirement for bond.
Id. ¶ 4.
filed a motion for default judgment (Dkt. 11) alleging
Defendants had failed to file their answer. Defendants filed
their answer on September 30, 2019. However, Mendez did not
receive a copy until late October 2019. Dkt. 12. Now that he
is aware of the answer, he seeks to withdraw his motion for
default judgment. Id.
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7
(2008). Preliminary injunctive relief “is an
extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the
burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong,
520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (citation omitted). A
“possibility” of irreparable harm is
insufficient; irreparable injury must be “likely”
in the absence of an injunction. Winter, 555 U.S. at
“court may issue a preliminary injunction only on
notice to the adverse party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1).
And a court may issue a temporary restraining order without
notice only if “specific facts in an affidavit or
verified complaint clearly show that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition”
and “the movant's attorney certifies in writing any
efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not
be required.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1).
has failed to articulate specific facts showing that he will
suffer irreparable injury before final resolution of this
case. Mendez has not offered any argument or authority to
support his request for an injunction. Mendez asks the Court
to enjoin further trash service, and the associated fees. He
also seeks an order requiring Defendants to remove unpaid
fees from his property tax rolls. The only harm Mendez will
suffer without an injunction is the accumulation of trash
collection fees. “Mere financial injury, however, will
not constitute irreparable harm if adequate compensatory
relief will be available in the course of litigation.”
Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of State
of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 471 (9th Cir. 1984). If Mendez is
ultimately successful, his harm is easily compensable in
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and