Section 8

Citation: Section 8
Parent Document: Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-02-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/205533/park-village-apartment-tenants-a... ↗

Full Text

1,418 chars

Even if we agreed with the Dissent’s legal premise that the
statutory “right to remain” includes an implied statutory right
to certain housing conditions (which we do not), we would
still be compelled to conclude that the district court abused its
discretion. “The essence of equity jurisdiction is the power of
the court to fashion a remedy depending upon the necessities
of the particular case.” United States v. Odessa Union Ware-
house Co-op, 833 F.2d 172, 175 (9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis
added). Under our case-specific approach, “we do not pre-
sume irreparable harm” simply because a defendant violates
a statute that authorizes injunctive relief. See Small ex rel.
NLRB v. Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ Int’l Ass’n
Local 200, 611 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting, in
light of Winter, our prior holding that “once a likelihood of
success is established, district courts are required to ‘presume
irreparable injury’ ” in statutory enforcement actions (quoting
Miller ex rel. NLRB v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449, 460
(9th Cir. 1994) (en banc))); cf. Mac’s Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell
Oil, 130 S. Ct. 1251, 1263 & n.12 (2010) (discussing 15
U.S.C. § 2805(b)(2)(A)(ii), a statute that “substantially
relaxes the normal standard for obtaining preliminary-
injunctive relief”). Rather, we must determine whether, “[o]n
the facts of this case,” an injunction is warranted. Winter, 129
S. Ct. at 375.

Other Sections in This Document (141)

Full Text