2024-04-02 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Claudia Rohr Testimony

Home

Case 1.22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 22 of 28 PagelD.3082 In sum, nothing has materially changed since the Court granted HILSTRA's request for a preliminary injunction in October 2022. The City's new, creative, and ultimately implausible legal arguments do not stave off the inevitable: HILSTRA's motion for summary judgment is granted on Count I. IL Permanent Injunction A. Grant of the Permanent Injunction Having granted summary judgment in favor of HILSTRA on the merits of its preemption claim, the Court considers the remaining factors relating to the potential issuance of a permanent injunction: (1) irreparable injury; (2) inadequate remedies at law; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) the public interest. See eBay Inc., 547 U.S. at 391. For many of the same reasons explicated in the Court's prior Order issuing a preliminary injunction, HILSTRA satisfies all four remaining elements. See Dkt. No. 31 at 25-29. First, HILSTRA has shown that absent a permanent injunction, its members are likely to sustain imminent and irreparable injury. Without the injunction, owners and advertisers of lawful 30-89 day rentals will be under credible threat of citation for violations of an ordinance that conflicts with state law. See Dkt. No. 60 at 11-13, 23; Stip. Facts at¶ 105 (explaining "[s]ince the adoption of Ord. 22-7, DPP has established a short-term rental enforcement group"); see also Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1029 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding a likelihood of - 22 -