Gulf Restoration Network et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al

Filing 5

ORDER AND REASONS denying 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order because plaintiffs' claims are not ripe for adjudication.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/23/15. (jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GULF RESTORATION NETWORK,
ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 15-6193

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
SECTION: R(2)
ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
On November 20, 2015, plaintiffs Gulf Restoration Network, Margie
Vickanir-Pray, and Pippin Frisbie-Calder filed this action seeking to enjoin
defendants U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lt. General Thomas P. Bostick,
Colonel Richard L. Hansen, and Secretary of the Army Eric K. Fanning
(collectively, “the Corps”) from issuing a dredging permit to Maurepas Pipeline
LLC.1 Plaintiffs now move the Court to issue a temporary restraining order
enjoining the Corps from continuing “its permitting process for the Maurepas
Pipeline, LLC application for a Department of Army permit . . . because its
statutorily required public notice is deficient and illegal.”2
To obtain a temporary restraining order, the moving party must show:
(1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits;
(2) there is a substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable harm if
the court denies the injunctive relief; (3) the threatened injury to the movant
1

R. Doc. 1.

2

R. Doc. 2 at 2.

outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the court’s granting
injunctive relief will not disserve the public interest. Clark v. Prichard, 812
F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). A court may issue a temporary restraining order
without notice only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a 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.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).
The Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order
because plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for adjudication. See Texas v. United
States, 523 U.S. 296 (1998); Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967);
Monk v. Houston, 340 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2003).

23rd
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _______ day of November, 2015.

___________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2