Premoh v. Cincinnati City of
1:15-cv-00265
S.D. OhioFeb 4, 2016Background
- Premoh owns property at 2832 Highland Ave.; he received a building permit on Dec. 1, 2011, and began renovations in 2012.
- The City issued exterior repair orders in Oct. 2012; Premoh later received a notice of civil offense and fine in Aug. 2014.
- Premoh learned on Aug. 20, 2014 that the 2011 permit had been cancelled on Mar. 12, 2014; he alleges he received no required notice (mail/phone/posting) and thus was denied an opportunity to appeal the cancellation.
- Premoh’s later permit application was denied with recommendations to revise plans; while revising, the City issued a condemnation order on Jan. 22, 2015, allowing an appeal; Premoh appealed on Apr. 23, 2015 (appeal pending).
- Premoh filed a verified motion for a preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement of the cancelled permit, vacatur of civil fines/offense and the condemnation, and to enjoin demolition.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the preliminary injunction, finding Premoh did not show likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the public interest or equities supported injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on due-process claim for permit cancellation | Premoh: permit cancellation was not properly noticed; deprivation of property interest without adequate process | City: administrative procedures were followed; Premoh has or had administrative remedies (new permit application, appeal) | Court: Premoh failed to show he was denied adequate process or a strong likelihood of success; factor weighs against injunction |
| Due process re: condemnation order | Premoh: condemnation followed from wrongful permit cancellation and deprived him of property rights | City: condemnation notice (Jan. 22, 2015) informed Premoh of appeal rights; appeal is pending | Court: Appellate process available and pending; no strong likelihood of success on due-process claim |
| Irreparable harm from denial of injunction | Premoh: threatened demolition, fines, and condemnation cause irreparable injury | City: Premoh can seek new permit, administrative procedures (including hearing) must be followed before demolition; damages available in litigation | Court: Harm is speculative or remediable (damages/administrative appeal); no irreparable harm shown |
| Equities / public interest / status quo preservation | Premoh: injunction would allow completion of renovations and benefit community | City: public health/safety and enforcement of building codes favor municipal action; federal courts should avoid unnecessary entanglement in local code enforcement | Court: Public interest and deference to local enforcement counsel against injunctive relief; requested relief would alter rather than preserve status quo |
Key Cases Cited
- Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) (sets four-factor preliminary injunction framework)
- Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov., 305 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2002) (discusses balancing equities in injunction analysis)
- Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2003) (district court need not make specific findings on each injunction factor if some are dispositive)
- University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (availability of later adequate remedies undermines irreparable-harm showing)
- S. Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924 F.2d 98 (6th Cir. 1991) (failure to show irreparable injury is fatal to preliminary injunction)
- Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2006) (harm must be actual and imminent to support injunction)