November 2020 - Parks & Recreation - 32

L AW R EV I EW

the federal district court found " the
potential environmental harm the
LWCF is designed to protect " outweighed " the economic harm the
District will suffer from constructions delays " :
[E]conomic harm does not generally outweigh the environmental
harms protected by LWCF. As a
general rule, the public interest in
preserving nature and avoiding
irreparable environmental injury
outweighs economic concerns in
cases where plaintiffs are likely to
succeed on the merits of their underlying claim.
Accordingly, the federal district
court held: " Save the Park is likely to
succeed on the merits, the prospect
of environmental harm prevails and
tips the balancing process in favor
of issuance of an injunction. "

Alleged Lack of Diligence
The District also opposed Save the
Park's injunction request on the
basis that Save the Park was not
diligent in seeking relief from the
federal district court. In so doing,
the District relied on the general
proposition that " parties seeking
relief from an administrative decision concerning public construction projects must act 'with haste
and dispatch.' " According to the
District, construction of the project restarted in late April 2020, but
Save the Park didn't file its lawsuit
until June 12, 2020, and did not
seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction until
June 26, 2020.
The federal district court, however, acknowledged that " seeking
injunctive relief is not the only
means of diligently addressing a
matter. " On the contrary, in this
particular instance, the court found
30

Parks & Recreation

a prompt challenge on the part of
Save the Park could take the form
of asking NPS to reconsider its
conversion approval. In the opinion of the court, Save the Park had
acted " with haste and dispatch " by
promptly challenging NPS's approval of the District's school renovation project:
Within a month of NPS's issuing its initial approval, Save the
Park prepared and served on NPS
a voluminous petition requesting
reconsideration. Although there
was delay following Save the
Park's submission, it was occasioned by NPS's assurances that it
would consider the submitted material and issue " updates " within
two weeks. All the while, counsel
for Save the Park continued to
press NPS to move quickly. When
it became clear that NPS's updates
would not take the form of a decision - and still less than two
months after NPS issued its initial
approval - Save the Park filed
this action.
Accordingly, the federal district
court found: " Save the Park's early and continuous communication
with NPS seeking reconsideration
of the agency's decision, along with
its prompt filing of this lawsuit once
it realized that NPS wouldn't reach
a quick decision, sufficiently establish Save the Park's diligence in
challenging NPS's approval. " Under these circumstances, the court,
therefore, held the " balance of the
equities favors Save the Park. "

Temporary Injunction in
the Public Interest
As listed above, the fourth of the
required four points to prevail on
a request for a preliminary injunction would require Save the Park

| N OV E M B E R 2 02 0 | PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N .O R G

to show " an injunction in favor of
plaintiff is in the public interest. "
In this particular instance, the federal district court found Save the
Park had succeeded in showing
" the public interest favors injunctive relief - if only temporarily. "
In so doing, the court found " Save
the Park rightly notes that the public
has an interest in ensuring that public agencies comply with their own
regulations. " On the other hand, the
court acknowledged, " this interest
would normally be outweighed by
the competing interest in ensuring
that school is open and ready for
use by students when the school
year begins. " However, in light of
present circumstances, the court
recognized the District's schools
were not scheduled to open on time
in 2020 due to state health department restrictions in response to the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In the opinion of the court, it
was, therefore, unlikely that " the
District will need to be ready to accommodate students in classrooms
in September - or for that matter
in the immediate future. " Further,
the court found the " relatively brief
time to wait for NPS to reach a decision " would support the " issuance
of time-limited injunctive relief " requested by Save the Park:
NPS's counsel estimated at the
hearing that the agency may complete its reconsideration around the
end of August. A reversal or modification of NPS's decision would
substantially alter the likely outcome
of this lawsuit, potentially clarifying
whether an injunction for a longer
term would be appropriate...
Considering the slim likelihood that
schools in San Diego County will be
open for in-person learning in the fall
and the high likelihood that further
November 2020 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of November 2020 - Parks & Recreation
