Kingman Park Civic Ass'n v. Gray, Civil Action No. 13–990 (CKK).

• Decision Date: 29 July 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–990 (CKK).
• Citation: 956 F.Supp.2d 230
• Parties: KINGMAN PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. Vincent C. GRAY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

956 F.Supp.2d 230

KINGMAN PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,

v.Vincent C. GRAY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 13–990 (CKK).

United States District Court,

District of Columbia.

July 29, 2013.

Frazer Walton, Jr., Law Office of Frazer Walton, Jr., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR–KOTELLY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Kingman Park Civic Association (“Kingman Park”) filed suit against Vincent C. Gray in his official capacity as the Mayor of the District of Columbia, challenging aspects of the District's plan to construct a streetcar line in the Northeast quadrant of the District. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's [5] Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, for Preliminary Injunction and for Waiver of Bond. Upon consideration of the pleadings,¹ the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of its claims, the Plaintiff is not likely to suffer irreparable injury absent emergency relief, and the balance of the equities do not favor injunctive relief. With the public interest weighing against an injunction, on balance the Court finds emergency injunctive relief is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The District of Columbia intends to construct a “a surface fixed rail and streetcar public transportation network,” comprised of eight lines extending across 37 miles. Def.'s Ex. A (Nicholson Decl.) ¶ 4; see also DC's Transit Future Sys. Plan Final Report, April 2010.² The first leg of the system consists of 2.2 miles of track along H Street and Benning Road in the Northeast quadrant of the District, connecting Benning Road to Union Station (hereinafter the “H Street line”). Nicholson Decl. ¶ 7. Construction on the H Street line began in 2008 with new parking lanes, sidewalks, street lights, reconstructed roadways, streetcar tracks, and pole foundations. Nicholson Decl. ¶ 10. The streetcars “will be powered by quiet electric motors, and use a pole and pantograph to collect power from an electrified wire that is suspended approximately twenty feet over the lane on which it runs.” Def.'s Opp'n at 4. At some point this month, the District will begin installing poles and overhead contact wires for the overhead cantilever system that will power the streetcars. Nicholson Decl. ¶ 12. Installation of the overhead cantilever system is expected to be completed in late September or early October of this year. Id.

The District of Columbia Department of Transportation (“DDOT”) intends to build a “car barn” training center on the grounds of the Joel Elias Spingarn Senior High School (the “Spingarn campus”), located on the 2500 block of Benning Road, Northeast. Nicholson Decl. ¶ 14. Spingarn Senior High School was a public school prior to its closure in July 2013. Id. at ¶ 15. In November 2012, the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Review Board designated Spingarn High School as an historic landmark in the District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites. Am. Compl. ¶ 31. The car barn will be used to house streetcars while not in operation, and will also serve as “an operations base and maintenance facility” where workers will be trained to repair streetcars. Nicholson Decl. ¶ 16. In late June 2013, the District began constructing tracks and temporary facilities to enable system testing and certification. Id. at ¶ 20. Excavation of the planned car barn site was set to begin the week of July 15, 2013. Id. at ¶ 23. Five streetcars are scheduled to be delivered to the Spingarn campus in October 2013. Id. at ¶ 21. Construction of the permanent car barn structure will begin “this Fall,” and the District expects the car barn to be completed in the summer of 2014. Id. at ¶ 22.

The District plans to install three “traction power substations” to provide power along the H Street line. Nicholson Decl. ¶ 13; Compl., Ex. 3 (DC Streetcar Sys. Plan: H St./Benning Rd. & Future Segments & Exts.) at 12; Pl.'s Reply, Ex. 3 (DDOT, Traction Power Supply Distribution). One of the substations is expected to be installed on the Spingarn campus. Nicholson Decl. ¶ 13; see also Compl., Ex. 3 at 12 (noting the substation location for the eastern end of the H Street line is near the intersection of Benning Road and 26th Street, Northeast).³ The substation will only operate while the streetcars are in service. Def.'s Opp'n at 5 (citing Car Barn Training Ctr. Info. & FAQs, Spring 2013, at 3). The “underground infrastructure” for each of three substations is currently being installed. Nicholson Decl. ¶ 13. To date, none of the substations have been installed, but all three substations have been purchased and are being manufactured. Id. The substation to be installed on the Spingarn campus is scheduled to be delivered on October 22, 2013. Id.

B. Procedural History

The Plaintiff filed suit on June 28, 2013, and simultaneously filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction. During a telephone conference call on the record with the parties on July 1, the parties agreed to a schedule for briefing the Plaintiff's requests for a TRO and preliminary injunction separately. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant informed the Court that excavation for the electrical substation was expected to begin the week of July 1. Def.'s Notice, ECF No. [4]. The Plaintiff subsequently withdrew its initial motion for emergency relief and filed the present Amended Motion. The Defendant elected to file an omnibus opposition to the Plaintiff's motion rather than respond separately to the Plaintiff's request for a TRO and for a preliminary injunction, and the Plaintiff filed a reply. In light of the new arguments raised in the Plaintiff's reply brief, the Defendant moved to strike portions of the reply, or in the alternative, for leave to file a sur-reply. Def.'s Mot. to Strike, ECF No. [11]. In this case, the Court found the interests of justice would be best served by deciding the Plaintiff's motion based on full briefing of all of the issues raised by the parties, rather than excluding particular arguments on procedural grounds. 7/23/13 Order, ECF No. [12]. Accordingly, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to strike, but granted the Defendant leave to file a sur-reply. Id. The Court also instructed the Defendantto supplement his sur-reply to address the new arguments in the Plaintiff's reply concerning its equal protection claims. Id. Having received the Defendant's sur-reply and supplement thereto, the Plaintiff's motion is now ripe for consideration by the Court.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or TRO must establish that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of the equities tips in its favor, and (4) an injunction would be in the public interest. Id. at 20, 129 S.Ct. 365. “The first component of the likelihood of success on the merits prong usually examines whether the plaintiffs have standing in a given case.” Barton v. District of Columbia, 131 F.Supp.2d 236, 243 (D.D.C.2001) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)).

Historically, these four factors have been evaluated on a “sliding scale” in this Circuit, such that a stronger showing on one factor could make up for a weaker showing on another. See Davenport v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 166 F.3d 356, 360–61 (D.C.Cir.1999). Recently, the continued viability of that approach has been called into some doubt, as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has suggested, without holding, that a likelihood of success on the merits is an independent, free-standing requirement for a preliminary injunction. See Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392–93 (D.C.Cir.2011); Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C.Cir.2009). However, absent binding authority or clear guidance from the Court of Appeals, the Court considers the most prudent course to bypass this unresolved issue and proceed to explain why a preliminary injunction is not appropriate under the “sliding scale” framework. If a plaintiff cannot meet the less demanding “sliding scale” standard, then it cannot satisfy the more stringent standard alluded to by the Court of Appeals.

III. DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order enjoining the installation of overhead wires for the overhead cantilever system and the excavation on the Spingarn campus. The Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining those activities, as well as any construction for the car barn, substation, or other facilities on the Spingarn campus. The Defendant filed an omnibus opposition to the Plaintiff's request for both a TRO and a preliminary injunction, therefore the Court addresses the Plaintiff's requests together. The Court begins with the Defendant's contention that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action, before turning to the four factor test for preliminary injunctive relief. Because preliminary injunctive relief is not warranted in this case, the Court does not reach the issue of whether Kingman Park should be required to post a bond.

A. Standing

As a threshold issue, the Defendant argues Kingman Park lacks standing to challenge the installation of the overhead wires or construction at Spingarn. The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). First, the plaintiff must have...