Ford et al v. 1280 West Condominium Association, Inc. et al
Filing
34
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 4/17/2014. (cem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
KIMBERLY FORD and
MILDRED ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
1280 WEST CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC. and
BEACON MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:14-CV-00527-RWS
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency
Temporary Relief [2]. After reviewing the record, the Court enters the
following Order.
Background
Plaintiffs Kimberly Ford and Mildred Robinson seek a temporary
restraining order against Defendants 1280 West Condominium Association, Inc.
(“Association”) and Beacon Management Services, Inc. In 2005, Ford
purchased a condominium unit in Defendants’ building and became a member
of the Association. (Dettmering Decl., Dkt. [14-1] ¶ 17.) Ford later assigned a
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
portion of her ownership interest to Robinson, her mother. (Id.)
The Association’s governing documents include Declarations placing
certain restrictions on owners’ use of their units. (Id. ¶ 4.) All unit owners are
members of the Association and are bound by the Declarations. (Id.) Included
in the Declarations is a provision prohibiting the leasing of residential units
unless the owners “have applied for and received from the [Association’s]
Board of Directors either a ‘Leasing Permit’ or a ‘Hardship Leasing Permit.’ ”
(Id. at 57.) The Association bars owners from simultaneously leasing and
occupying a unit. (Id.) When Plaintiffs ran into financial trouble, Defendants
granted them a Hardship Leasing Permit for several years but declined to grant
them a fourth permit in August 2012, arguing that they were not entitled to one
because Defendants had learned that they in fact occupied the unit. (Defs.’
Resp., Dkt. [14] at 9.)
Plaintiffs objected that they had not received notice of the Board’s
decision, so in March 2013 the Board afforded them an opportunity to appear
before an executive session of the Board. (Dettmering Decl., Dkt. [14-1] ¶ 27.)
However, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs again failed to provide adequate
information about their finances. (Id. ¶ 28.) The Board therefore declined to
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
change its decision. (Id.) Additionally, Defendants assert that they learned on
March 7, 2014, that Plaintiffs were leasing the unit in breach of the
Declarations. (Id. ¶ 35.) Consequently, Defendants state that “it has taken steps
to assess applicable fines of $100 per day against Ms. Ford and restrict her
access and her tenant’s access to the building’s common areas. Ms. Ford and
Ms. Robinson will continue to have access to their unit.” (Id.)
By contrast, Plaintiffs allege that the Association discriminated against
them when it denied them another Hardship Leasing Permit and then refused to
grant them a grievance hearing. (Pls.’ Reply, Dkt. [18] at 3.) Furthermore,
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ policies discriminate against African
American and female owners of condominiums. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs bring
claims for housing discrimination, breach of contract, intentional interference
with potential economic advantage, and civil rights violations. Finally,
Plaintiffs seek emergency injunctive relief.
Discussion
Before a court will grant a motion for a temporary restraining order, the
moving party must establish that: (1) “it has substantial likelihood of success on
the merits,” (2) it will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is not granted, (3) the
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief may inflict on the non-moving
party, and (4) entry of relief “would not be adverse to the public interest.” KH
Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1268 (11th Cir. 2006). A
temporary restraining order “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be
granted unless the movant ‘clearly carries the burden of persuasion’ as to the
four prerequisites.” United States v. Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th
Cir. 1983) (quoting Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir.
1974)).
Having reviewed the Complaint, the allegations therein, and the affidavits
in the record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they
will suffer irreparable injury if relief is not granted. In their Motion for
Emergency Temporary Relief, Plaintiffs argue that “they have been able to
finance their current home by leasing the condo unit and having that income
[to] pay that mortgage.” (Dkt. [2-1] at 3.) Plaintiffs also contend that
Defendants have threatened to lock them out of their property. (Id. at 1.)
Even though Plaintiffs would be prevented from leasing their
condominium absent another permit and would suffer financial harm, such
injury is not irreparable. See Diamond Power Int’l, Inc. v. Clyde Bergemann,
4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (“Mere injuries, however
substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the
absence of a stay are not enough.” (quoting Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d at 1520)).
If successful on the merits, Plaintiffs could receive damages for lost earnings.
Further, Defendants submitted an affidavit stating that the Board will assess
fines but that Plaintiffs will still have access to their unit. (Dettmering Decl.,
Dkt. [14-1] ¶ 35.) Therefore, this case is unlike an action, for instance, where
the party seeking a temporary restraining order faces foreclosure by the
defendants. See, e.g., Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 734 F.2d 774, 789 (11th
Cir. 1984) (holding that “irreparable injury is suffered when one is wrongfully
ejected from his home”). In sum, temporary relief is not warranted because
Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing that they will suffer
irreparable harm.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency Temporary
Relief [2] is DENIED.
5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of April, 2014.
________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge
6
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?