Court Opinion

ID: 9955620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 20:17:19.991074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:08.094322
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                                                                                                         Filed 01/18 24
                                                                                                                       Washington nit

 VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT                                  ”a"?
                                                                   1
                                                                  54                                 CIVIL DIVISION
 Washington Unit                                                                                  Case No. 24-CV-00189
 65 State Street
 Montpelier VT 05602
 802—828—2091

 wwwvermontjudiciaryorg

  Protect Our Wildlife, a nonproﬁt 501(c)(3) organization et a1 V. Fish and Wildlife Board, an Agency of
                                       the State of Vermont et a1

         O inion and Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Tem orar                            Restrainin Order

         The Plaintiffs in this case consist of four nonproﬁt organizations—Protect Our

Wildlife, Animal Wellness Action, Center for a Humane Economy, and Vermont Wildlife

Coalition—all opposed to the Defendant Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board’s recently

promulgated Furbearing Species Rule, available at https://vtfishandwildlife.com/sites/

f1shandwildlife/ﬁles/documents/About%20Us/Board%20Rules/New%2ORules/Hunt-

Trap/2023/Final-Furbearer-Rule-clean-12.14.2023.pdf (the “Rule”). Among other things,

the Rule regulates the trapping of Wildlife and the taking of coyotes with the aid of dogs.

Plaintiffs contend that the Rule materially deviates in several ways from the legislative

intent of the statutes that required the Board to adopt it. They request that the Court

enjoin Defendants from implementing the rule, and reinstate the moratorium on hunting

coyotes with dogs imposed by 2021, N0. 165 (Adj. Sess.), §§ 2—3 (“Act 165”) (moratorium

ceases once the Board’s rule is promulgated).

         Plaintiffs’ motion faces a high bar. An injunction, particularly an ex parte one, is

an “extraordinary remedy,” and the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that his “right

to relief is clear” and that the Court should not even allow the opposing party a chance to

respond prior to affording the requested relief. Comm. t0 Save the Bishop ’s House v.

Order                                                                                                  Page 1 of 5
24-CV—00189 Protect Our Wildlife, a nonproﬁt 501(c)(3) organization et a1 v. Fish and Wildlife Board, an Agency of the State of
Vermont et a1
Medical Center Hosp. of Vt., 136 Vt. 213, 218 (1978); see Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(a); Blast v.

Fisher, No. 07-CV-0567, 2007 WL 2815754, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2007); see also

Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Town of Ludlow, 171 Vt. 201, 212 (2000) (discussing

preliminary injunctions).

         Plaintiffs seek both a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary

injunction. Preliminary injunctions are entered after notice and a hearing, which affords

the opposing parties due process. See Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). A request for a preliminary

injunction typically seeks to advance the relief ultimately sought in the case, a final

injunction, at least until the case progresses to a final judgment. A hearing on the

preliminary injunction, if appropriate, may be consolidated with the trial on the merits

so that ultimate relief may be considered at an early stage of the proceeding. Vt. R. Civ.

P. 65(b)(2).

         A TRO is different. Typically, temporary injunctions are entered ex parte, before

the opposing party has notice and an opportunity to contest it. Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(a).

Their purpose is usually “to preserve the status quo until there is an opportunity to hold

a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction.” 11A Charles Wright, et al.,

Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2951 (3d ed.). As it is entered prior to notice and a hearing, it is

truly extraordinary relief. See id. (“The issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining

order is an emergency procedure and is appropriate only when the applicant is in need of

immediate relief.” (footnote omitted)).

         Both types of injunctions require the Court balance a number of factors to assess

the impact of granting or withholding the requested relief: “(1) the threat of irreparable

harm to the movant; (2) the potential harm to the other parties; (3) the likelihood of
Order                                                                                                   Page 2 of 5
24-CV-00189 Protect Our Wildlife, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization et al v. Fish and Wildlife Board, an Agency of the State of
Vermont et al
success on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Taylor v. Town of Cabot, 2017 VT 92,

¶ 19, 205 Vt. 586, 596 (internal quotations omitted); see In re J.G., 160 Vt. 250, 255 n.2

(1993) (noting same).

         When a party seeks a TRO, the Court also must consider the potential unfairness

of acting without the benefit of legal and factual arguments from the opposing party—ex

parte relief may violate the subject party’s due process interests. See 11A Charles

Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2951 (3d ed.) (“a court planning to issue a

temporary restraining order must be particularly careful that the movant has produced

compelling evidence of the threatened irreparable injury and has exhausted all

reasonable efforts to give the adverse party notice and an opportunity to be present and

introduce evidence at a hearing”). Because this proceeding thus far is ex parte, the Court

now considers only the request for a TRO.

         In this instance, Plaintiffs’ submissions have not clearly convinced the Court that

the exceptional remedy of an ex parte TRO should issue. No doubt, Plaintiffs have raised

serious legal arguments supporting their view that some components of the Rule are not

consistent with the legislative intent of the statutes that prompted the Board to

promulgate it and that, in light of the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules’

formal objection to it, Defendants will have the burden of establishing that the Rule is

consistent with legislative intent. It is not clear, however, that Defendants would be

unable to carry that burden.

         Moreover, the record includes no compelling demonstration of any emergency need

for a TRO, which would only last until the motion for a preliminary injunction could be

heard. Plaintiffs have established no concrete, imminent, and irreparable harm.
Order                                                                                                   Page 3 of 5
24-CV-00189 Protect Our Wildlife, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization et al v. Fish and Wildlife Board, an Agency of the State of
Vermont et al
Declarations from several members of Plaintiffs describe a small number of experiences

they have had in the past with coyote dogs trespassing on their private property. In one

such incident, a trespassing dog is described as “charging” the property owner, though no

physical injury is alleged. The Court cannot infer, based on a few such anecdotal

experiences, that there is any manifest likelihood of significant trespasses by coyote dogs

within a short window of time. Nor is there any compelling evidence that, if such an

injury occurred, it would be irreparable.

         Further, the requested TRO does not maintain the status quo. As this case comes

to the Court, Plaintiffs represent that the Board has promulgated the Rule and the

Department has proceeded to implement it, at least as of its January 1 effective date.

Act 165 imposed the moratorium only until the Board adopted the Rule. Thus, while

Plaintiffs argue that the moratorium should be reimposed because the Rule adopted does

not comply with the statutes that compelled it, the current status quo is that the Rule

has been adopted and is being implemented. The Court presumes that at least some

members of the public have already relied upon and are engaging in the processes

allowed by the Rule. Accordingly, rather than seeking to restrain Defendants for a short

time to avoid irreparable injury pending an adversarial hearing, Plaintiffs’ TRO request

is seeking to create a new status quo. At this early stage, and without full briefing, the

Court cannot conclude that the public interest and the interests of other parties clearly

weigh in favor of such a request.

         Nonetheless, Plaintiffs have raised significant issues going to the heart of the Rule

and have alleged serious contentions that the Rule is in conflict with Vermont law. The

Court believes those claims should be subject to an expedited hearing on the request for a
Order                                                                                                   Page 4 of 5
24-CV-00189 Protect Our Wildlife, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization et al v. Fish and Wildlife Board, an Agency of the State of
Vermont et al
preliminary injunction, which would be determined in light of the briefing and

arguments of both sides. The Court will set an expedited briefing schedule and an early

hearing on the request for preliminary injunctive relief.

                                                        Conclusion

         For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO is denied.

         Plaintiffs shall serve Defendants with this action and this Order without delay.

Defendants shall submit any memorandum opposing the issuance of preliminary

injunctive relief by noon on January 29, 2024. Any reply memorandum shall be

submitted by noon on February 5, 2024. The Court will hold an injunction hearing on

Thursday, February 8, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

         Electronically signed on Thursday, January 18, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

                                                                _______________________
                                                                Timothy B. Tomasi
                                                                Superior Court Judge

Order                                                                                                   Page 5 of 5
24-CV-00189 Protect Our Wildlife, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization et al v. Fish and Wildlife Board, an Agency of the State of
Vermont et al