Felts Field Development, LLC v. Aero Center Felts Field, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00368
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Sep 29, 2025 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 FELTS FIELD DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Washington limited liability NO: 2:25-CV-0368-TOR 8 company, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 10 v.

11 AERO CENTER FELTS FIELD, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, 12 Defendant. 13 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining 14 Order. ECF No. 2. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral 15 argument. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and files herein, and 16 is fully informed. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff, Felts Field Development, seeks a temporary restraining order 19 preventing Defendant from evicting it from Bay Three. The Space Permit 20 1 incorporated by reference the “Master Lease” and the “Master Lease” allows 30- 2 day eviction notice if the property isn’t being used properly.

3 DISCUSSION 4 A temporary restraining order (TRO), “like a preliminary injunction, is ‘an 5 extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.’” M.R. v. Dreyfus, 735 F.3d

6 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 7, 24 (2008)). To prevail on their motion for a TRO, Plaintiffs must demonstrate 8 (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury if the 9 injunction does not issue, (3) that a balancing of the hardships weighs in their

10 favor; and (4) that a preliminary injunction will advance the public interest. 11 Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted). To demonstrate that they are entitled to 12 a TRO, Plaintiffs must satisfy each element. In evaluating the elements of a

13 preliminary injunction, “a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker 14 showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 15 1131 (9th Cir. 2011); Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We 16 have also articulated an alternate formulation of the Winter test, under which

17 serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply 18 towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as 19 the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the

20 injunction is in the public interest.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 1 Plaintiff asserts that the “Master Lease” referred to in the Space Permit was 2 not supplied to it. However, paragraph 11 refers to the Master Lease and it is

3 incorporated into the Space Permit and is available for inspection. ECF No. 6-3 at 4 3. 5 A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

6 Plaintiffs must show that there are at least “serious questions going to the 7 merits” of their claims. Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1135. They must also show that they 8 are likely to succeed on those questions of merit. Farris, 677 F.3d at 865; accord 9 Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 148 Wash. App. at 473 (“. . . likelihood that the plaintiff

10 will ultimately prevail at a trial on the merits by showing (1) that he has a clear 11 legal or equitable right . . . .”). 12 First, Plaintiff asserts that the 30-day notice was not incorporated into the

13 Space Permit. However, it was as described above. 14 Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits of their 15 claim. 16 B. Likelihood of Irreparable Injury

17 Plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must “demonstrate that 18 irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 19 (emphasis in original). “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a

20 possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with [the Supreme Court’s] 1 characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be 2 awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. Put

3 another way, Plaintiffs must show that they will likely suffer a substantial harm 4 from the alleged wrongful conduct. See Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 148 Wash. App. 5 at 157.

6 Because Aero Center is entitled to send a 30-day notice, Plaintiff has not 7 established the likelihood of an irreparable harm. 8 C. Balancing of the Hardships 9 “In each case, courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must

10 consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested 11 relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 12 While the Court recognizes the imminent irreparable nature of losing Bay Three,

13 the Court also recognizes the right of Aero Center to evict. 14 Given that Plaintiffs have not identified any serious questions relating to the 15 merits of their case, it is likely that they will not succeed in being evicted. 16 D. Advancement of the Public Interest

17 “In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular 18 regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of 19 injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456

20 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)). Plaintiff contends that a TRO “would clearly serve the public interest” because, in the absence of an injunction, Defendant will evict 2|| them. The Court concludes that in the circumstances of this case, denying a TRO will advance these purposes more than would granting a TRO. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) is 6 DENIED. 7 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and 8 || furnish copies to counsel. 9 DATED September 29, 2025. ‘| □□ thom OR: Sa gp STW, 0 ee 11 On Ke THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRO ~ 5