Rosemere Neighborhood Association et al v. Clark County et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 37 40 Defendants' Motion to Establish Bond; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9
10

ROSEMERE NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION, COLUMBIA
RIVERKEEPER, and NORTHWEST
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 11-cv-5213 RBL
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ESTABLISH BOND

Plaintiffs,
v.
CLARK COUNTY, TOM MIELKE, in his
capacity as Clark County Commissioner,
MARC BOLDT, in his capacity as Clark
County Commissioner, STEVE STUART, in
his capacity as Clark County Commissioner,
and BILL BARRON, in his capacity as Clark
County Administrator

17

Defendants.
18
19

I.

ISSUE

20

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Establish Bond. (Dkt. # 40.) Defendants
21

request that Plaintiffs be required to post a bond of $1,143, 414. (Id. at 2.) For the reasons stated
22

below, the Court denies the motion.
23

II.

DISCUSSION

24

Under Federal Rule 65 (c):
25
26

The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the
movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and
damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.

27

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(c). A court, however, has the discretion to allow a party to proceed without
28

posting bond where “requiring security would effectively deny access to judicial review.”
Order - 1

1

People of State of Calif. ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d

2

1319, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). In Van de Kamp, the Ninth Circuit also noted that

3

“special precautions to ensure access to the court must be taken where Congress has provided for

4

private enforcement of a statute.” Id. at 1325–26. A district court should also consider the

5

likelihood of success on the merits in the decision whether to impose bond. Id. at 1326.
Here, Plaintiff has little or no means to post a substantial bond. The litigation seeks to

6
7

enforce provisions of the Clean Water Act, and as such, is in the public interest. Further,

8

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, given the indications of the

9

Pollution Control Hearings Board.
III.

10

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Establish Bond is DENIED. (Dkt.

11
12

CONCLUSION

#40.)

13
14

Dated this 4th day of April 2012.

15

17

A

18

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2