Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2019-001134 Memorandum Opinion No. 2020-MO-014
12-02-2020
City of Myrtle Beach, for Itself and a Class of Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, Respondent, v. Horry County, Appellant.
Wm. Grayson Lambert, of Burr & Forman LLP, of Columbia; James K. Gilliam and Adam R. Artigliere, both of Burr & Forman LLP, of Greenville; and Henrietta U. Golding, of Burr & Forman LLP, of Myrtle Beach, all for Appellant. John M. S. Hoefer and Chad N. Johnston, both of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Columbia; and R. Walker Humphrey II, of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Charleston, for Respondent.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. Appeal from Horry County
William H. Seals Jr., Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Wm. Grayson Lambert, of Burr & Forman LLP, of Columbia; James K. Gilliam and Adam R. Artigliere, both of Burr & Forman LLP, of Greenville; and Henrietta U. Golding, of Burr & Forman LLP, of Myrtle Beach, all for Appellant. John M. S. Hoefer and Chad N. Johnston, both of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Columbia; and R. Walker Humphrey II, of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Charleston, for Respondent. 2 PER CURIAM: Horry County (the County) appealed an order granting a temporary injunction which halted the collection of a 1.5% fee (the Fee) on accommodations, hospitality, admissions, and car rentals within the municipalities in the county, and we certified the appeal pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR. We now affirm the well-reasoned order of the circuit court and concur with its analysis in every respect. See Hook Point, L.L.C. v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 397 S.C. 507, 510, 725 S.E.2d 681, 683 (2012) ("The grant of an injunction is reviewed for [an] abuse of discretion."). Having carefully reviewed the matter, we find the municipalities have manifestly established a likelihood of success on the merits, and made the requisite initial showing that: (1) they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; (3) the County's collection of the Fee was arbitrary, oppressive, and capricious; and (4) the temporary injunction was reasonably necessary to protect the municipalities' rights in the pending action. See generally Richland Cty. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 422 S.C. 292, 310, 811 S.E.2d 758, 767 (2018) (setting forth the necessary elements for a temporary injunction against a public entity); Atwood Agency v. Black, 374 S.C. 68, 72, 646 S.E.2d 882, 884 (2007). The temporary injunction preserves the status quo until the circuit court finally determines the Fee's legality. The order granting a temporary injunction halting collection of the Fee in the municipalities in Horry County is therefore AFFIRMED. 3 BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.