Konarski v. Donovan
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11454
D.D.C.2011Background
- Petitioners own an apartment building in Tucson and allege HUD-empowered Tucson officials conspired to bar renting to Section 8 tenants.
- City advised petitioners in 2001 it would not approve new Section 8 contracts with Konarski due to tenant complaints and staff problems.
- In 2010 the City approved two Section 8 contracts but eight days later notified they were improvidently signed and would not be processed.
- On October 13, 2010, Frank Konarski filed a mandamus petition against HUD and HUD Secretary Donovan seeking intervention in Section 8 dealings.
- On October 15, 2010, the court denied the petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order and the petitioners filed numerous post-hearing motions.
- The court denies all but the motion to join a party, and resolves other motions: recusal, reconsideration, disqualification, strike, televised proceedings, transcript copies, and mediation requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners are entitled to a preliminary injunction. | Konarski argues HUD should intervene to stop city officials’ actions harming Section 8 contracts. | Respondents contend they are not parties to contracts and mandamus relief is unavailable. | Denied; no likelihood of success on the merits. |
| Whether the court should recuse itself. | Petitioners contend bias necessitates replacement judge. | Rulings do not show bias; recusal unwarranted. | Denied. |
| Whether relief upon reconsideration should be granted. | Petitioners seek reconsideration of the TRO denial. | Motion repeats prior arguments; no basis for relief. | Denied. |
| Whether the petitioners’ motion to disqualify respondents’ counsel should be granted. | Counsel engaged in misrepresentations; disqualify would ensure fairness. | No specific allegations; motion lacks merit. | Denied. |
| Whether the court should compel mediation or televise proceedings. | Mediation is necessary; courts should televise hearings. | Med is not productive now; Local Rule prohibits televising; no transcripts withheld without cost concerns. | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (requirements for preliminary injunctions; likelihood of success matters)
- Munaf v. Geren, 128 S. Ct. 2207 (U.S. 2008) (injunction standards and balance of equities)
- Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 38 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D.D.C. 1999) (injunction standards and discretion)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (rulings alone rarely justify recusal)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (court power to control proceedings and sanction conduct)
- Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int'l Corp. v. Style Cos., Ltd., 760 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1985) (strict scrutiny of disqualification motions)
- Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266 (D.D.C. 2004) (relief under reconsideration and interlocutory matters)
- Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (mandamus prerequisites and relief standards)
- Demjanjuk v. Meese, 784 F.2d 1114 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (exacting standards for mandamus relief)