Federal Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Sought by HOA to Prevent Alleged Nuisance and Trespass

US District Court, Eastern District of California decision (September 3, 2014).

In this case a homeowners association (“Association”) filed suit against a neighboring property owner that operated a day camp on their property. The Association alleged claims based on theories of nuisance and trespass that stem from the adverse affects of the increased number of day users of the camp. The Association sought a preliminary injunction due to traffic congestion, parking problems, pedestrian foot traffic, noise pollution and other violations that date that the Association had been aware of since at least 2009.

The court stated that the standard for granting the requested preliminary injunction required the Association to show: (i) that it was likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested preliminary relief; (iii) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the Association; and (iv) that an injunction is in the public interest.

In denying the requested preliminary injunction, the court ruled in part that: (i) the Association failed to demonstrate that it was likely to prevail on the merits of its claims for nuisance and trespass; (ii) the Association’s long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction (having known about the problems since 2009) implied a lack of urgency and irreparable harm; (iii) that the Association did not meet its burden of demonstrating that it faced an “actual and imminent harm” absent the requested relief; (iv) the Association’s claims were too generic and speculative to constitute imminent, irreparable harm; and (v) the balance of hardships weighed against the Association and the public interest would not be served by the issuance of the requested preliminary injunction.

See case decision: Jameson_Beach_Prop._Owners_Ass’n_v._United_States_(E.D._Cal._2014)1