Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. Clark Cnty.

Full title: ROSEMERE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER, and NORTHWEST…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Apr 4, 2012

No. 11-cv-5213 RBL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 4, 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-cv-5213 RBL

04-04-2012

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

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ESTABLISH BOND

I. ISSUE

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Establish Bond. (Dkt. # 40.) Defendants request that Plaintiffs be required to post a bond of $1,143, 414. (Id. at 2.) For the reasons stated| below, the Court denies the motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule 65 (c):

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.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(c). A court, however, has the discretion to allow a party to proceed without posting bond where "requiring security would effectively deny access to judicial review." People of State of Calif. ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). In Van de Kamp, the Ninth Circuit also noted that "special precautions to ensure access to the court must be taken where Congress has provided for private enforcement of a statute." Id. at 1325-26. A district court should also consider the 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 enforce provisions of the Clean Water Act, and as such, is in the public interest. Further, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, given the indications of the Pollution Control Hearings Board.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Establish Bond is DENIED. (Dkt. #40.)

____________

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE