Cottonwood Environmental Law Center et al v. Edwards et al

Filing 61

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Second Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED IN PART: 1) Plaintiffs motion seeking a temporary restraining order is DENIED. 2) The hearing for the second preliminary injunction will be reset by further order of the Court upon the parties' submission of a proposed schedule. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 8/23/2021. (SLR)

Case 2:20-cv-00028-BMM Document 61 Filed 08/23/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
COTTONWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW CENTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

CV-20-28-BU-BMM
ORDER

v.
RON EDWARDS, in his official
capacity as Manager of the Big Sky Water
and Sewer District; and BIG SKY
WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint against the above-named Defendants
on September 23, 2020, asserting that Defendants violate section 301 of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Doc. 8. Plaintiffs moved for a first preliminary
injunction on February 3, 2021. Doc. 21. This Court denied that motion on March
23, 2020. Doc. 35. Plaintiffs moved for a second preliminary injunction on June 30,
2021. Doc. 47. This Court vacated the August 17, 2021 hearing for Plaintiffs second
preliminary injunction to provide time for Defendants to depose Plaintiffs’ expert
witness. Doc. 58. Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order enjoining the
Defendants from accepting any new sewer connections on August 20, 2021. Doc.

Case 2:20-cv-00028-BMM Document 61 Filed 08/23/21 Page 2 of 3

60.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) authorizes this Court to issue a temporary restraining
order without written or oral notice to the adverse party only where (A) “specific
facts in . . . a verified complaint clearly show that immediate or irreparable injury,
loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition;” and (B) “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to
give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” The analysis "is
substantially identical for [a preliminary] injunction and [a] TRO." Stuhlbarg Intern.
Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs
"must establish that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tip in [their] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v.
Natural Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order represents an extraordinary remedy, that should not be
awarded as a matter of right, but only “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
This Court previously found that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable
harm or established sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. Doc. 35 at 18. This
Court also found that the balance of the equities, for the same remedy requested here,
did not weigh in favor of the Plaintiffs. Id. Plaintiffs have not submitted new
2

Case 2:20-cv-00028-BMM Document 61 Filed 08/23/21 Page 3 of 3

evidence to change the Court’s prior determination. The Court will allow Defendants
to respond to Plaintiffs’ expert report before weighing that evidence.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Second Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is
DENIED IN PART.
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion seeking a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

2.

The hearing for the second preliminary injunction will be reset by
further order of the Court upon the parties' submission of a proposed
schedule.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2021.

3