SIERRA CLUB, a public-interest corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 98-9011.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 14, 1999.
180 F.3d 1309
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff‘s motion. Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend until 2 months after the deadline for amending the pleadings had passed, the dispositive motion deadline was one month away, plaintiff and defendant‘s representative had been deposed, and plaintiff had knowledge of the information contained in the proposed amendment when she filed the lawsuit. See Technical Resource Servs. v. Dornier Med. Sys., 134 F.3d 1458, 1463-64 (11th Cir.1998); Hargett v. Valley Fed. Sav. Bank, 60 F.3d 754, 761 (11th Cir.1995).
Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Thomas Horton Beisswenger, Douglas P. Haines, Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest, Athens, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Daniel S. Reinhardt, Eric A. Szweda, Atlanta, GA, Hugh Brown McNatt, Vidalia, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before MARCUS, Circuit Judge, HILL, Senior Circuit Judge, and FERGUSON*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court‘s denial of Appellant Sierra Club‘s motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to
Under the permit, Georgia Power is authorized to discharge heated wastewater from its coal-fired electricity generation facility (the plant) into Lake Sinclair near Milledgeville, Georgia, subject to the numerical temperature limits of “90 degrees Fahrenheit or 5 degrees above intake temperature.” Sierra Club contends that Georgia Power can achieve this heat limit by reducing the amount of power generated at the plant. Georgia Power contends that it cannot do so without, contrary to the public interest, impacting upon the level of power generated throughout its entire electrical system.
Following the presentation of evidence and argument at hearing, the district court agreed with Georgia Power. It concluded that the potential harm to the general public from a reduction of electrical power or thermal loading into the lake, outweighed the potential injury to lakeside residents if the plant continued to operate at its current output pendente lite. Accordingly, the district court denied Sierra Club‘s motion for a preliminary injunction.
The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is a decision within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536, 539 (11th Cir.1983) (citation omitted). On appeal from the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction, we do not review the intrinsic merits of the case. Id. “It is the function of the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding upon and delicately balancing the equities of the parties involved.” Id., citing Tatum v. Blackstock, 319 F.2d 397, 401-02 (5th Cir.1963). A preliminary injunction is a “drastic” remedy, and we will disturb the denial of a preliminary injunction only if the district court abused its discretion. Crochet v. Housing Authority of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607, 610 (11th Cir.1994) citing Cafe 207, Inc. v. St. Johns County, 989 F.2d 1136, 1137 (11th Cir.1993).
There is adequate evidence in the record to support the district court‘s ruling that the grant of a preliminary injunction would be adverse to the public interest. See Lambert, 695 F.2d at 539. It is apparent from the record that the only way to reduce thermal loading to the lake (during the summer of 1998, when meteorological conditions throughout the southeastern United States were much warmer than normal) would have been substantially to reduce or eliminate electrical generation, to the great disadvantage of the general public. Further evidence reflects that fish kills resulting from warm lake temperatures were temporary, not significant, and limited to a small percentage of the lake. Expert testimony concluded that the loss of fish “should not hurt the health of the lake in general” and that in the thirty years of plant operation, fish kills occurred in only six of those years, and then gener-
We do not review the intrinsic merits of the case. Lambert, 695 F.2d at 539. It is the function of the district court to exercise its discretion and delicately to balance the equities of the parties involved. Id. The district court was correct in concluding that a steady supply of electricity during the summer months, especially in the form of air conditioning to the elderly, hospitals and day care centers, is critical.1
Under these circumstances, we certainly cannot state that the district court abused its discretion in declining to issue a preliminary injunction. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
* Honorable Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.