U.S. v. State of N.Y.
Decision Date | 26 May 1983 |
Docket Number | D,No. 1049,1049 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Beechcraft East, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The STATE OF NEW YORK; and William Hennessey, as Commissioner of the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellants. AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HENNESSEY, as Commissioner of the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellants. ocket 82-6343. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Barrie L. Goldstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City , for defendants-appellants.
James J. von Oiste, Port Jefferson, N.Y., for intervenor-plaintiff-appellee Beechcraft East, Inc.
R. John Siebert, Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Washington, D.C. (Kenneth N. Weinstein, U.S. Dept. of Transp., Leonard A. Ceruzzi, Richard W. Danforth, Robert F. Eisengrein, F.A.A., J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., David J. Anderson, Eugene A. Beatty, Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee U.S. of America.
John S. Yodice, Bethesda, Md. (Charles J. Peters, Bethesda, Md., Mark L. Heller, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee Aircraft Owners and Pilots Ass'n.
Before OAKES, CARDAMONE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is taken from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Roger J. Miner, Judge, enjoining the State of New York from imposing a nighttime ban on the use of Republic Airport in Suffolk County, New York. The court below granted plaintiff Beechcraft's motion for preliminary injunction on grounds that New York's curfew was overbroad and arbitrary in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and on the ground that Beechcraft would suffer irreparable business damages because the Eleventh Amendment precludes Beechcraft from suing New York in federal court for any damages Beechcraft suffers. We agree.
To be entitled to a preliminary injunction under the test established in Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam), Beechcraft must show "(a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting preliminary relief." Id. at 72.
New York does not challenge Judge Miner's judgment on Beechcraft's likely success on the merits; this appeal contests only the finding of irreparable harm. Judge Miner found that Beechcraft's injury was irreparable even though Beechcraft's losses were only pecuniary because a suit in federal court against New York to recover the damages sustained by Beechcraft would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. New York argues that the court below erred because Beechcraft could have sued New York in the New York Court of Claims. New York's argument, however, simply misses the mark; in deciding whether a federal plaintiff has an available remedy at law that would make injunctive relief unavailable, federal courts may consider only the available federal legal remedies. See Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Commissioner, 304 U.S. 209, 217 & n. 8, 58 S.Ct. 834, 839 & n. 8, 82 L.Ed. 1294 (1938); DiGiovanni v. Camden Insurance Association, 296 U.S. 64, 69, 56 S.Ct. 1, 3, 80 L.Ed. 47 (1935). Legislative exceptions to this well-established rule are narrow and specific. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1342 ( ); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 ( ).
New York's arguments against what it calls the "novel proposition" that only federal remedies should have been considered by the court below are answered by a look at the logic of the lower court's decision and at the later fate of the cases on which New York relies. The State argues that the court below eased the necessary showing of irreparable harm in cases seeking injunctive relief against states when in fact the court can only be said to have required an absolute showing of irreparability here because Beechcraft's federal damages against New York are constitutionally foreclosed. New York's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blum v. Schlegel
... ... 714 COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED 830 F. Supp. 715 James Ostrowski, Buffalo, NY, for plaintiff and Jeffrey M. Blum, plaintiff pro se ... Robert Abrams, New York State Atty. Gen., for defendants (Douglas S. Cream, Buffalo, NY, of counsel) ... ... ...
- Dist. of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 20-119 (BAH)
-
N.Y. State Telecomms. Ass'n, Inc. v. James
...S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992) ), unless the Eleventh Amendment precludes recovery of monetary damages, United States v. New York , 708 F.2d 92, 93 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam).A. Parties’ ArgumentsPlaintiffs ground irreparable harm in a "Hobson's choice" whereby they suffer injury wheth......
- Florida v. Becerra