Opinion
No. 01-71472
August 28, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's April 16, 2001 Motion for preliminary injunction.
Defendants filed a response on May 7, 2001; Plaintiffs filed a reply on May 15, 2001.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The Plaintiff, Helen Jones suffers from multiple sclerosis. Ms. Jones is an employee of the Salvation Army Harbor Light. She is fluent in sign language and is the counselor for a 49 day-long in-patient substance abuse recovery program. Ms. Jones may be the only sign language substance abuse counselor in Michigan.
The City of Monroe has issued Ms. Jones dozens of parking tickets. The tickets were issued because Ms. Jones left her car in a one hour parking spot for the work day. This occurred nearly every day for several months. Ms. Jones has a handicapped permit but the city contends that the permit does not allow her to violate the time limit. The City is currently trying to collect on the outstanding tickets.
The Complaint charges that the City of Monroe does not have adequate long term parking for handicapped people who work downtown. Monroe disputes this charge. The City's Response contains maps that show several long term handicapped parking places within two blocks of Ms. Jones office. Ms. Jones believes that these parking places are not close enough to the center of downtown and that they are not properly maintained.
The motion for preliminary injunction is asking the court to force the City of Monroe to return to its former policy of not ticketing the Plaintiff when she leaves her car in a one hour parking space for the entire work day. (Ms. Jones claims that the City did not ticket her the first few times she left her car for the full day.) Or have the City of Monroe reserve a free accessible parking space on the street next to her office. The Plaintiff would also like the court to stay the City's attempt to collect on the outstanding tickets.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The availability of injunctive relief is a procedural question governed by federal law. Southern Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924 F.2d 98 (6th Cir. 1991). Its purpose is to "preserve the status quo pending final determination of the lawsuit." Lapeer County Medical Care Facility v. Michigan, 765 F. Supp. 1291, 1296 (W.D. Mich. 1991). A preliminary injunction is considered an extraordinary remedy, the movant must "clearly" carry the burden of persuasion as to the factors considered by the court. Id. Where the plaintiff's harm is strictly economic, plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and a motion for preliminary injunction is properly denied. 8600 Associates Ltd. v. Wearguard Corp., 737 F. Supp. 44, 46 (E.D. Mich. 1990).
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has warned lower courts to exercise "great caution and careful deliberation" when considering a motion for preliminary injunction. Lapeer County at 1296 (citing Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Detroit Typographical Union, 471 F.2d 872 (6th Cir. 1972), cert denied, 411 U.S. 967 (1973)). The standard of appellate review of the propriety of an injunction granted by the district court is abuse of discretion. Frisch's Restaurant, Inc. v. Shoney's Inc., 759 F.2d 1261, 1263 (6th Cir. 1985). The reviewing court will not overturn the district court's findings of fact unless they are "clearly erroneous." Forry, Inc. v. Neundorfer, Inc., 837 F.2d 259, 262 (1988).
In the Sixth Circuit, the "test" for determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction consists of four factors:
(1) the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits;
(2) whether the injunction will save the plaintiff from irreparable injury;
(3) whether the injunction would harm others; and
(4) whether the public interest would be served by the injunction.
In re DeLorean Motor Co. v. DeLorean, 755 F.2d 1223, 1228 (6th Cir. 1985).
In applying these four "considerations," the court cautioned that they are "factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met. Accordingly, the degree of likelihood of success required may depend on the strength of the other factors." Id. at 1229. The DeLorean court cited, with approval, several lower court cases in which a preliminary injunction was properly granted where the plaintiff was unable to show a strong probability of success on the merits, but where "he at least shows serious questions going to the merits and irreparable harm which decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the defendant if the injunction is issued." Id.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Ms. Jones Complaint alleges that the City of Monroe's parking program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Sixth Circuit dealt with a similar claim In Gardner v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 841 F.2d 1272 (6t Cir. 1988). The Gardner case involved a claim that the City's parking program, and its issuing of tickets violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. The court found it had jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiff's claim.
In order for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to succeed Plaintiff must prove a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim. The Court does not believe there is such likelihood. The City has a comprehensive parking policy. The City's parking plan takes into account the needs of the handicapped and does not, on its face, seem to violate the ADA. In short, the City's parking plan seems to comply with the federally mandated standard of equal access.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.