City of SeaTac v. Avis Budget Car Rental LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CITY OF SEATAC, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00081-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY 13 AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL LLC, INJUNCTION 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the City of SeaTac’s Emergency Motion for a 17 Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. No. 17. For the reasons set forth 18 below, the Court denies the motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 The City of SeaTac filed its complaint in this Court on January 14, 2025, alleging that 21 Defendant Avis Budget Car Rental LLC has damaged City roads and created unsafe conditions 22 around its rental car lot located within City limits. Dkt. No. 1 at 2–4. Specifically, the City alleges 23 that Avis’s car haulers damaged City roads on two occasions in 2023. Id. at 3. The City further 24 alleges that in 2024, Avis created unsafe conditions—once resulting in a three-vehicle collision— 1 on City streets by parking its haulers on the busy road adjacent to its rental lot. Id. The City also 2 received complaints from City staff, residents, and motorists about Avis’s unsafe use of the public 3 roadway. Id. at 3–4. The City’s attempts to resolve the issue with Avis have not been successful. 4 Id. at 4. On September 18, 2025, the City filed this motion for emergency relief “enjoining Avis

5 from using the public roadway, specifically, South 160th Street, and 34th Avenue South, within 6 the City of SeaTac, to offload vehicles from the transporters or auto haulers effective immediately 7 and until further notice.” Dkt. No. 17 at 8. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 empowers the court to issue a temporary restraining 10 order (“TRO”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Like a preliminary injunction, a TRO is “an extraordinary 11 remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); 12 see also Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (the standards applicable 13 to TROs and preliminary injunctions are “substantially identical”). The Court will not 14 “mechanically” grant an injunction for every violation of law. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456

15 U.S. 305, 313 (1982). Instead, plaintiffs seeking a TRO must establish that (1) they are “likely to 16 succeed on the merits,” (2) they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 17 relief,” (3) “the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,” and (4) “an injunction is in the public 18 interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The mere “possibility” of irreparable harm is insufficient; instead, 19 the moving party must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an 20 injunction.” Id. at 22. 21 A. The City Is Not Entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order 22 A TRO “is an extraordinary remedy that is generally reserved for emergency situations in 23 which a party may suffer immediate irreparable harm.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Group AG, No.

24 C 10-05604 SBA, 2011 WL 13154031, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011); see also Whirlpool Corp. 1 v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 20 n.33 (1980) (noting that temporary restraining orders are used for 2 “emergency situations”). A party’s “long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a 3 lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 762 F.2d 4 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985).

5 Here, the City’s lengthy delay undermines its claim for emergency relief. The City filed 6 this lawsuit in January 2025, Dkt. No. 1, and it avers that Avis has occasionally parked its haulers 7 on the road since at least as early as April 2024, id. at 3–4. The City does not explain why the 8 continuation of this conduct has suddenly ripened into an emergency or why it waited so long to 9 file this motion. See generally Dkt. No. 17.1 Although its motion for a TRO states that an Avis 10 auto hauler was parked on the roadway again on September 2, 2025, id. at 4, another incident of 11 the same type of recurring conduct does not justify the long delay. 12 In light of the City’s lengthy and unexplained delay, the Court finds that City has not shown 13 that an emergency exists. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for a TRO. 14 B. The City Is Not Entitled to a Preliminary Injunction

15 The City has also failed to show that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Its motion is 16 entirely devoid of citations to the record for the alleged “facts” it cites. See generally Dkt. No. 17. 17 Although “the rules of evidence do not apply strictly to preliminary injunction proceedings” 18 because of their urgency, Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 19 1250 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court has no obligation to scour the record for evidence that might 20 support the City’s position, see, e.g., Est. of Rowland v. King Cnty., No. 2:24-cv-01240-LK, 2025 21 WL 821862, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2025) (collecting cases); see also Ramsey v. Muna, 819 22 F. App'x 505, 507 (9th Cir. 2020) (courts “are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs[,] 23 1 The City sent a “preliminary version” of this motion for emergency relief to Avis on July 25, 2020, Dkt. No. 17-2 at 24 2, before the September 2 incident and nearly eight weeks before it filed this “emergency” motion, Dkt. No. 17 at 4. 1 and cannot manufacture arguments for a [litigant]” (citation modified)). The absence of citations 2 also violates Local Civil Rule 10(e)(6), which requires parties to cite to evidence in the record. In 3 a similar vein, the City has failed to authenticate—or even describe—the exhibits it filed with its 4 motion. Dkt. Nos. 17-4–17-8; see also Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Accordingly, the Court denies the

5 City’s request for a preliminary injunction because it is unsupported. However, the denial is 6 without prejudice to the City’s ability to refile their motion with evidentiary support and in 7 compliance with the Local Civil Rules and other applicable law. 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the City of SeaTac’s Emergency Motion for 10 a Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. No. 17. 11 Dated this 18th day of September, 2025. 12 A 13 Lauren King United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23