d/b/a Seaport House (Hopkins Hawley LLC) et al. v. Cuomo et al.
ORDER denying 16 Motion for TRO. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiffs' TRO request is DENIED. In denying the TRO request, the Court expresses no view on the merits of Plaintiffs' pending application for a Preliminary In junction. The state and city entities are directed to respond to the Preliminary Injunction application by January 13. The Plaintiffs are directed to reply by January 19. A virtual hearing on the Preliminary Injunction motion will be held on January 21 at 12:30 PM. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 1/8/2021) (ks)
Case 1:20-cv-10932-PAC Document 32 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HOPKINS HAWLEY LLC d/b/a SEAPORT
HOUSE, THE GREATER NEW YORK
MERCHANTS’ ALLIANCE, and COSTIN
TARSOAGA, on behalf of themselves and all :
others similarly situated,
ANDREW CUOMO, in his personal and
official capacity as Governor of the State of
New York, THE NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THE NEW
YORK CITY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
and BILL DE BLASIO, in his personal and
official capacity as Mayor of the City of New :
The Court held a telephonic conference on January 6, 2021 to discuss the Plaintiffs’
motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction enjoining
Governor Cuomo’s latest COVID-19 restrictions on restaurant dining in New York City. For the
reasons stated on the record, Plaintiffs’ TRO request is DENIED.
Where, as in here, an injunction “will affect government action taken in the public
interest pursuant to a statute or regulatory scheme, the moving party must demonstrate (1)
irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, (2) a likelihood of success on the merits, and (3) public
interest weighing in favor of granting the injunction.” Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, No. 203572, 2020 WL 7691715, at *6 (2d Cir. Dec. 28, 2020) (cleaned up); see Murray v. Cuomo, 460
F. Supp. 3d 430, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). The Plaintiffs have failed to meet this three-factor test—
Case 1:20-cv-10932-PAC Document 32 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 3
namely the irreparable harm and public interest factors—and therefore their TRO petition must
be denied. As the Court noted during the conference, Governor Cuomo’s directive banning
indoor dining in New York City was announced on December 11, 2020. See Governor Cuomo
Announces Updated Zone Metrics, Hospital Directives and Business Guidelines, Governor’s
Press Office (Dec. 11, 2020), available at https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomoannounces-updated-zone-metrics-hospital-directives-and-business-guidelines. Yet the Plaintiffs
filed for a TRO seeking enjoinment of Governor Cuomo’s policy nearly three weeks later, on
December 30, 2020. (ECF 16.) This lack of immediacy belies the notion that the Plaintiffs’
alleged harm is irreparable and in need of TRO relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)
(explaining that a party seeking a TRO must “show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss,
or damage will result”); see also Lee v. Haj, No. 116CV00008DADSAB, 2016 WL 8738428, at
*2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2016) (finding no irreparable harm where plaintiffs had “not shown that
the potential harm they face is so immediate to justify issuing a temporary restraining order”).
Moreover, the Court also finds the public interest factor to weigh in favor of denying the
TRO request. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is
unquestionably a compelling interest.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S.
Ct. 63, 67 (2020). “And judges are not public health experts and should respect the judgment of
those with special expertise and responsibility in this area.” Agudath Israel, No. 20-3572, 2020
WL 7691715, at *10. Because Governor Cuomo’s latest restaurant dining policy constitutes a
prophylactic measure designed to safeguard the welfare and safety of the New York City public
against the COVID-19 virus, the Court will presume the policy is valid until a more complete
record indicates otherwise. See S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613,
207 L. Ed. 2d 154 (2020) (C.J. Roberts, concurring) (“The precise question of when restrictions
Case 1:20-cv-10932-PAC Document 32 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 3
on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and factintensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts the
safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States to guard
and protect.”) (cleaned up); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 38 (1905).
In denying the TRO request, the Court expresses no view on the merits of Plaintiffs’
pending application for a Preliminary Injunction. The state and city entities are directed to
respond to the Preliminary Injunction application by January 13. The Plaintiffs are directed to
reply by January 19. A virtual hearing on the Preliminary Injunction motion will be held on
January 21 at 12:30 PM.
Dated: New York, New York
January 8, 2021
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?