Machowski v. Ogden Unit Owners Association

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00583
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JAMES J. MACHOWSKI, 4 Case No. 2:25-cv-00583-NJK1 Plaintiff, 5 Order v. 6 [Docket Nos. 7, 25, 33] OGDEN UNIT OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, 7 Defendant. 8 9 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to dismiss two prayers for relief and to 10 revise one, Docket No. 33, which is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately 11 file and serve his amended petition. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Docket No. 7, 12 is DENIED as moot. 13 Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Docket No. 14 25. A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 15 showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 16 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to 17 demonstrate (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable 18 harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) 19 that an injunction is in the public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 20 2009). 21 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, limited to deciding cases or controversies. 22 Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir. 2002). The case-or-controversy 23 requirement is jurisdictional. Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 2008); Headwaters, 24 Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 1990). Hence, in the absence of a 25 genuine “case or controversy,” the Court cannot rule on the matter and the case is said to be 26 “moot.” Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations and 27 1 On April 24, 2025, the case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge on the 28 parties’ consent. Docket Nos. 10, 11, 12. 1} quotations omitted). Similarly, a party cannot seek injunctive relief without first alleging a case or controversy in the operative pleading. Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 3] 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A court’s equitable power lies only over the merits of the case 4] or controversy before it. When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”’). 6 Here, the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to amend his petition for declaratory judgment. 7| For example, the Court has granted the parties’ request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim that “Defendant 8|| is acting under color of [s]tate law when attempting to enforce NRS 116.31184.” See Docket No. 9] 33 at 2. However, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctions alleges that Defendant’s “board 10] intends to enforce NRS 116.31184.” Docket No. 25 at 6. See Stewart v. US INS, 762 F.2d 193, 11] 198 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that the district court was without jurisdiction to issue a preliminary 12] injunction because plaintiffs complaint did not encompass the issue underlying the injunction request). Not only must there be an operative pleading, but there must be a relationship between 14] the injury claimed in the preliminary injunction motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint. 15] Jd. Although the entirety of Plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgement is not subject to change, see Docket No. 33 at 2, the Court cannot conduct the appropriate analysis for Plaintiff's motion, which calls for a consideration of the likelihood of success on the merits of the claims in the 18]| operative pleading. Gibbs v. Sanchez, No. CV 16-9013-RGK (PLA), 2018 WL 5903893, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2018); see also see Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 744 (9th Cir. 2015) 20] (because of a “mismatch” between the plaintiff's claim and the dangers she hoped to remedy 21] through an injunction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her request for preliminary injunction). 23 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction as moot. 24|| Docket No. 25. 25 Dated: July 16, 2025 26 Lh □ Kon Nancy-}i Koppe 27 UnitedStates Magistrate Judge 28