Hains v. Pointe Coupee Par. Gov't
| Docket Number | 22-835-SDD-RLB |
| Decision Date | 07 November 2023 |
| Parties | AMY HAINS v. POINTE COUPEE PARISH GOVERNMENT, POINTE COUPEE PARISH COUNCIL, AND MAJOR THIBAULT CIVIL ACTION |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff, Amy Hains (“Plaintiff').[1] Defendant, Pointe Coupee Parish Government[2] (“the Parish” or “Defendant”) filed an Opposition to this motion,[3] to which Plaintiff filed a Reply.[4]For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion should be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
In December 2013, Plaintiff purchased property on False River Road in New Roads, Louisiana, which is located in Pointe Coupee Parish. Plaintiff's property is adjacent to the body of water known as False River. Plaintiff eventually constructed a boat house over False River, also referred to as the “Entertainment Room.” To accomplish this construction, on January 16, 2019, Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the State of Louisiana whereby the state leased to Plaintiff approximately 1,800 square feet of state-owned water bottoms in False River for a five-year term.[5] The Lease provides that it was made and executed by the State and Plaintiff “for the sole purpose of maintaining a deck with two boat slips and an upper floor with an entertainment room” on the Leased Property.[6] On December 21, 2018, the State notified the Parish of Plaintiff's lease application, and the Parish ultimately issued a letter on January 2, 2019 notifying the State that it did not object to Plaintiff's construction.[7]
Plaintiff completed construction of the Entertainment Room at the cost of approximately $330,000.[8] Plaintiff also purchased an insurance policy to cover this construction.[9] During and after completion of the construction, Plaintiff's neighbor expressed his objection to the construction, complaining that it obstructed his view of False River.[10]
In June 2022, a portion of the roof of the Entertainment Room was damaged by a fire, and Plaintiff engaged the same contractor who constructed the property to repair the damage; the project was limited to returning the Entertainment Room to its original state.[11]
Although originally advised by the Parish Inspector that Plaintiff needed only a demo permit to construct the repairs, a week later, the Parish Inspector advised Plaintiff's contractor that he must apply for a “shoreline permit,” and he also advised the contractor that the Parish President had instructed him not to issue this shoreline permit.[12] Plaintiff's contractor was also advised by the Parish Inspector that the Parish would take legal action against Plaintiff if the contractor proceeded with the repairs.[13] Plaintiff was personally advised by the Parish President that the Parish had passed an Ordinance prohibiting her from repairing the Entertainment Room.[14]
The Pointe Coupee Parish Ordinance addressing shoreline permits is found in Sec. 27(e) of Chapter 6, Article III, of the Code of Ordinances, Pointe Coupee Parish (the “Code”).[15] Plaintiff disputes that the permitting requirement in the Ordinance applies to the public side of the legal shoreline owned by the State where her property is located.[16]
The Parish insists Plaintiff must obtain a shoreline permit and has likewise advised Plaintiff that it will not grant a permit unless Plaintiff modifies her boat house to meet the building restrictions added by the 2019 amendments to Section 6-27(a) that were enacted by the Parish in 2019.[17] Plaintiff claims that the Parish has not enforced this Ordinance on other, similarly situated property owners.[18]
Plaintiff further contends the Parish has prohibited her from enjoying the use of her property as it will not allow her to repair the fire damage; it has deprived her of all economically viable use of the property; it has subjected the Entertainment Room to further damages from environmental elements due to the unrepaired roof; and she has lost the insurance premiums paid to cover damage to the Entertainment Room.[19] Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff asserts that her constitutional rights have been violated under the following: the Takings Clause, Procedural and Substantive Due Process, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Contracts Clause.[20]
In mid-2023, the Entertainment Room sustained additional damage when a windstorm ripped off portions of the roof that were intact after the fire damage. Plaintiff sought relief from the Parish and asked permission to repair the windstorm damage to the roof; the Parish responded by advising Plaintiff of an amended ordinance that may soon take effect to resolve the issue in this litigation and by also requesting Plaintiff temporarily repair her roof pending State approval of the aforementioned amendments.[21]Plaintiff determined that the cost of these temporary repairs would be between $10,000 and $15,000, and the temporary structure would ultimately need to be torn down after the State approves the amendments. Plaintiff then sought permission from the Parish to perform permanent repairs and received no response. Thus, to prevent further damage to the boat house and further economic loss, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 25, 2023.
The Parish opposes Plaintiff's motion, focusing primarily on the argument that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because money damages would adequately compensate the Plaintiff for her losses. The Court agrees.
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.[22] A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that their substantial injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom they seek to enjoin; and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.[23] Notably, ‘“[f] the movant fails to meet its burden regarding any one of the necessary elements, a court need not address the other elements necessary for granting a preliminary injunction.'”[24]
The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is discretionary with the district court.[25] However, because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, it “should not be granted unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.”[26] Consequently, the decision to grant a preliminary injunction “is the exception rather than the rule.”[27]
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is limited to preserving the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.[28] “Given this limited purpose, and given the haste that is often necessary if those positions are to be preserved, a preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits.”[29] For this reason, the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction are not binding at trial on the merits.[30]
III. IRREPARABLE HARM
Plaintiff claims that, absent an injunction, she will suffer irreparable harm “as the exposure caused by her open roof will cause her boathouse to sustain further damages beyond the damage caused by the fire.”[31] Further, Plaintiff contends if she is not permitted to make the repairs, she will be in breach of her Lease with the State.
The Parish contends [32] The Parish also argues that Plaintiff has presented no evidence to support her speculative argument that the State will terminate her Lease.
In reply, Plaintiff counters that: “The issue is not whether the harm to Ms. Hains is monetary in nature, it is whether the harm of which she complains can be remedied by the award of money damages in this litigation.”[33] Plaintiff claims she has “no available avenue of recovery for the cost of the temporary repairs in this litigation;” thus, she can satisfy the irreparable harm requirement under applicable jurisprudence. Plaintiff maintains that the Parish is forcing her to violate the terms of her Lease, which also constitutes irreparable harm. Finally, Plaintiff claims that the Parish's conduct has harmed her reputation in the “False River community.”[34] As a matter of law, “[i]rreparable injury is harm that ‘cannot be undone through monetary damages,' that is, harm for which money damages are inadequate or for which money damages are ‘especially difficult' to compute.”[35] “The ‘central inquiry in deciding whether there is a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiff is whether the plaintiff's injury could be compensated by money damages.'”[36] Accordingly, “there can be no irreparable injury where money damages would adequately compensate a plaintiff.”[37]
The Court is unpersuaded that Plaintiff's loss in this matter is anything more than monetary. Plaintiff has not articulated why money damages are unavailable in this suit, and her First Amended Complaint undermines this claim as she specifically prays for monetary damages against the Parish.[38] Plaintiff contends “the Parish has already made clear that it does not intend to compensate [her] for the temporary repairs it...
To continue reading
Request your trial