Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)

Citation: Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Parent Document: Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2017-12-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7328080/open-cmtys-alliance-v-carson/ ↗

Full Text

1,579 chars

The plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction requiring HUD to implement the Rule on its effective date of January 1, 2018. Pls.' Mot. Their motion challenges the lawfulness of HUD's two-year delay of the Rule's implementation in ways relating to claims in the complaint.5 First, the plaintiffs argue that HUD failed to adhere to the requirements of notice and comment procedure in delaying the Rule's implementation. Pls.' Mem. at 22-27; see Compl. ¶ 143-48. The defendants acknowledge HUD delayed the Rule's implementation without notice or comment, but argue that HUD had authority under a promulgated regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 888.113(c)(4), to suspend SAFMR designations and exempt PHAs without resort to notice and comment, Defs.' Opp'n at 21-27. The plaintiffs dispute that this regulation conferred such authority upon HUD. Pls.' Mem. at 24-27. Second, the plaintiffs argue that HUD's delay of the Rule's implementation was arbitrary and capricious because HUD failed to provide an adequate explanation *162for the delay. Id. at 28-34; see Compl. ¶¶ 149-57. The plaintiffs contend that the Rule's delayed implementation will irreparably harm them, and that both the balance of equities and consideration of the public interest weigh in favor of issuing a preliminary injunction. Pls.' Mem. at 34-43. Here, for reasons explained in further detail below, the plaintiffs have carried their burdens of demonstrating all four factors, and so merit a preliminary injunction under either the "independent factors" or "sliding scale" approach. A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text