Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08008/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 16:3372 Conservation: Complaint for Forfeiture

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Fox Chapel, an Arizona Charitable

organization, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Donald Walters; Marci Walters; Merle M.

Karber; Dixie D. Karber, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8008-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc.

# 2). 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Fox Chapel, is a charitable organization which owns A.P.N. 401-41-1005

(the “Property”) in Coconino County, Arizona. Defendants, Donald and Marci Walters and

Merle and Dixie Karber, own property adjacent to the Property. In November of 2004,

Plaintiff and Verde Valley Land Preservation Institute (“VVLI”) signed a Conservation

Easement which contributed the Property to VVLI as a grantee, subject to the contingent

right of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation

Service, each as agents of the federal government, to take title possession and control of the

property. Pursuant to the Conservation Easement, Plaintiff has the duty to maintain the

Property in its natural and open conditions. Should Plaintiff fail to enforce the terms of the

Case 3:07-cv-08008-JAT Document 18 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Conservation Easement the United States Department of Agriculture has the right to enforce

the terms of the Conservation Easement. In 2005, Judge Slayton of the Coconino County

Superior Court found Defendants were entitled to the use of an easement on the Property

through a deed from 1966. Plaintiff alleges that since Judge Slayton’s order, Defendants

have continued to go beyond the easement by deed and trespass onto the Property, to

Plaintiff’s determent. Around April of 2007, Defendants began independent negotiations

with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to amend the Conservation Easement.

Plaintiff is seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that would prevent Defendants

from going beyond the easement created by the 1966 deed and prevent Defendants from

further negotiating an amendment to the Conservation Easement without directly including

Plaintiff in the negotiations.

Plaintiff has requested a hearing, which the Court will deny. The Court has provided

Plaintiff the opportunity to have a hearing, however Plaintiff has failed to give the Court

notice that notice has been given to each Defendant as well as provide the Court all known

contact information for each Defendant or each Defendant’s counsel, as ordered by the Court

on May 31, 2007. Because substantial time has passed since the Court’s order, the Court will

make a decision on the merits absent a hearing.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To obtain a TRO, the moving party must show: 1) a strong likelihood of success on

the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable injury to the moving party if injunctive relief is

not granted, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the moving party, and 4) advancement of the

public interest. See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634

F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). The moving party may meet this burden by showing either:

1) a combination of the probable success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable injury,

or 2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships

tips sharply in its favor. Goto.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1204-05 (9th

Cir. 2000) (citing Sardi’s Rest. Corp. v. Sardie, 755 F.2d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 1985)).

Case 3:07-cv-08008-JAT Document 18 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

III. DISCUSSION

In determining if Plaintiff has meet its TRO burden, the Court will examine the

possibility of irreparable injury to Plaintiff as well as the balance of hardships to all parties.

Plaintiff’s fails to demonstrate the possibility of irreparable harm or show that the balance

of hardships tips sharply in its favor, therefore the Court will not examine the probable

success on the merits or the existence of serious questions going to the merits. See Los

Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n, 634 F.2d at 1201.

A. POSSIBILITY OF IRREPARABLE HARM

Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts which would rise to the level of impending

irreparable harm absent a TRO. “Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time

and energy necessarily expended . . . are not enough [to constitute irreparable harm]. Id. at

1202. In Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff vaguely asserts

Defendants’ trespass has disturbed wildlife on the Property. Additionally, Plaintiff has also

alleged that if Defendants are allowed to continue to exclude Plaintiff from negotiations,

Plaintiff may be seen as an “obstructionist.”

In regards to disruption of wildlife, Plaintiff only asserts, “Defendants have continued

to trespass onto the Conservation Easement and continue to cause damage to its flora and

fauna.” Doc. # 2, p. 9. Absent further details, the Court is unable to determine if irreparable

injury is occurring. Plaintiff has not stated if the alleged damage rises to the level of killing

plants and animals or is simply the bruising of a plant branch due to the occasional misstep.

Plaintiff failed to allege that a certain species of plant or animal is in danger of permanently

being harmed, but rather has rested on the vague claim that unspecified wildlife is being

disturbed. A blanket claim of disruption of wildlife, without any specific facts, is not enough

for Plaintiff to satisfy its burden of showing irreparable harm. Plaintiff failed to state

specifically how wildlife has been disturbed, what type of harm has occurred, or how this

disruption is irreparable. A restraining order must be tailored only to remedy the specific

harm shown by the plaintiffs. Land Council v. McNair, No. 07-35000, 2007 WL 1880990,

at *10 (9th Cir. July, 2, 2007). Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific harm the Court

Case 3:07-cv-08008-JAT Document 18 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

is unable to tailor a specific remedy. Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating

irreparable harm by asserting a vague and unsubstantiated allegation of wildlife damage.

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that if Defendants are allowed to continue to negotiate

an amendment to the Conservation Easement absent Plaintiff, Plaintiff may be forced to

accept unfavorable amendment terms or be viewed as an “obstructionist” by Coconino

County Superior Court (“Superior Court”) (Doc. # 2, p. 8). Being seen by the Superior Court

as an “obstructionist” does not constitute irreparable harm. If Plaintiff is unsatisfied with a

proposed amendment, Plaintiff may explain to the Superior Court that it was prevented from

participating in the amendment discussions. Because the Plaintiff has failed to meet its

burden of showing irreparable harm, the Court will not consider the probability of success

on the merits.

B. BALANCING OF HARDSHIPS

Plaintiff has not demonstrate that it engaged in an adequate balancing of hardships for

all the stakeholders affected by this dispute. In its complaint, Plaintiff failed to identify the

harms which a TRO might cause Defendants and then weigh these potential harms against

Plaintiff’s threatened injury. See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission, 634 F.2d

at 1203. “[T]he critical element in determining the test to be applied is the relative hardship

to the parties.” Brenda v. Grand Lodge of International Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace

Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1978). The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the

balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Goto.com, Inc., 202 F.3d at 1205. Such a

showing seems unlikely here. Plaintiff claims that in the absence of a restraining order it will

sustain some unspecified amount of disruption to wildlife due to Defendants’ trespass.

Additionally, Plaintiff claims that the Superior Court will view it as an “obstructionist” if

Plaintiff objects to a proposed amendment, which Defendants negotiated absent Plaintiff’s

participation. In contrast, granting the restraining order would prevent Defendants from

accessing the property subject to the conservation easement to which Defendants claim they

have a prescriptive easement. Also, the restraining order would prohibit Defendants from

negotiating an amendment to the Conservation Easement without the participation of

Case 3:07-cv-08008-JAT Document 18 Filed 08/06/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to show it accounted for any hardships incurred by a

third party, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service, as a result of the requested

TRO. Therefore, because Plaintiff has not meet its burden of demonstrating that the balance

of hardships tips sharply in its favor, the Court will not examine the existence of serious

questions going to the merits.

IV. CONCLUSION

The threat of some vague injury to wildlife and that of being seen as an

“obstructionist,” fails to satisfy Plaintiff’s burden of showing irreparable harm. Furthermore,

Plaintiff did not demonstrated that it adequately balanced the hardships of all parties affected

by the dispute and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Therefore, Plaintiff

has not meet its burden in showing either: 1) a combination of the probable success on the

merits and a possibility of irreparable injury, or 2) the existence of serious questions going

to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining

order (Doc. # 2) is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff moving for a preliminary

injunction after Defendants have received notice and if Plaintiff determines it can satisfy its

burden.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-08008-JAT Document 18 Filed 08/06/07 Page 5 of 5