City of Allentown v. Lehigh County Authority, 222 A.3d 1152

In 2013 the City of Allentown leased its water and sewer systems to Lehigh County Authority (LCA) for 50 years under a written concession and lease agreement that included an initial Schedule of Rates and limits on annual rate increases.
The Agreement provided residential customers (small meters) were billed quarterly and commercial customers (large meters) monthly; LCA continued that practice though the Agreement did not mandate billing cycles.
Beginning in 2016 the Agreement allowed annual rate increases limited to an Index Change (CPI) plus a fixed Margin Change (2.5% through 2032), defining a "Permitted Annual Rate Adjustment."
In May 2018 LCA's board approved converting small-meter (residential) customers from quarterly to monthly billing effective August 1, 2018, which substantially increased the billed amount per billing period and raised annual billed amounts for many residents.
The City sued and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop LCA’s billing-cycle change; the trial court denied the injunction (also questioned City’s standing); the City appealed.
The Superior Court held the City—being an express contracting party—has standing to sue under the Agreement but affirmed denial of the preliminary injunction because the City failed to show immediate, irreparable harm not compensable by money damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue for breach of contract	City: as a signatory, it has the right to enforce the Agreement	LCA/TC: City lacks a substantial, direct, immediate interest; harms fall on residents	Appellate court: City has standing as an express party to the Agreement (trial court was wrong)
Immediate and irreparable harm (prerequisite for injunction)	City: billing change would create acute economic hardship for low-income residents and worsen blight; harm not fully remediable by money	LCA/TC: City produced no concrete evidence of irreparable injury; harms are speculative and compensable by damages and refunds/credits	Held: City failed to prove immediate, irreparable harm; injunction denied
Balance of harms / greater injury	City: refusing injunction would injure residents more than granting it	LCA: any overcharges could be refunded; LCA offered reimbursement mechanisms	Court: because irreparable harm not shown, inquiry ended; trial court reasonably found no greater injury shown
Public interest	City: public interest favors protecting vulnerable residents and preventing unlawful rate increases	LCA: public interest served by orderly utility operations and remedies via damages/arbitration	Court: because injunction prerequisites unmet, public-interest argument did not warrant relief

Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995 (Pa. 2003) (standard of appellate review of preliminary-injunction rulings)
Santoro v. Morse, 781 A.2d 1220 (Pa. Super. 2001) (purpose of preliminary injunction: preserve status quo and prevent irreparable harm)
The York Group, Inc. v. Yorktowne Caskets, Inc., 924 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2007) (enumerates prerequisites for preliminary injunction)
Liss & Marion, P.C. v. Recordex Acquisition Corp., 983 A.2d 652 (Pa. 2009) (party to a contract may sue to enforce it)
Greenmor, Inc. v. Burchick Const. Co., Inc., 908 A.2d 310 (Pa. Super. 2006) (plaintiff must present concrete evidence of irreparable harm)
Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (municipality cannot assert only an abstract interest on behalf of residents)
City of Hazleton v. Hazleton Area School District, 276 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1971) (municipal corporation may not maintain action to protect residents where corporation is not directly affected)
Ferrer v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania, 825 A.2d 591 (Pa. 2002) (measure and recovery of contract damages)