Plaintiff?s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.
The evidentiary objections made by Defendants are sustained.? The evidentiary objections made by Plaintiff, with regard to the Declaration of Ragsdale, are overruled, except as to Nos. 9, 10 and 11, and with regard to the Declaration of Tomassian are overruled as to Nos. 3 and 4, as the objections are not specific enough as to the content to which they are asserted, and are overruled as to No. 6,?? and sustained as to No. 5. The ruling on the Exhibits is the same.
Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof. ?Plaintiff has not established, by competent evidence that it will prevail on the merits, and that Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the injunction does not issue.? Further, the Court cannot determine, at this point, whether the Leasing Enforcement Policy is proper and constitutional, as such will require a full evidentiary and fact finding hearing, fully briefed and argued.?? It is legitimately disputed.
The Declarations filed in support of the motion fail to demonstrate that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits. They are filled with innuendo, unsupported conclusions, and lack basic facts to support the merits of the claims made. They are inexact, and are, in certain instances, specifically made on information and belief, which cannot support the motion. There is no clear showing that Defendants have rented the property for less than a month,?? Vehicles with out of state license plates do not constitute rental agreements, and injunctions are not issued on speculation.
No irreparable harm is shown here. Plaintiff claims the continual short term rentals (which have not been proven) result in a nuisance (which also has not been proven, nor are the elements of the Cause of Action even addressed in the motion).? Plaintiff also asserts that this results in a reduction in property values; an argument which is not supported by any evidence. Plaintiff refers to reports from neighbors about loud noises, but the referenced Ramirez Declaration is devoid of any evidence in support that assertion. Plaintiff refers to the police coming out, on numerous occasions,? to address the loud noises,? and continuing and repeatable nuisance, but again the referenced Ramirez Declaration only refers to one instance in which the Police were called, and that incident occurred after the lawsuit was filed? None of this establishes a nuisance and none of this establishes irreparable harm.??? There is no exactitude, no time frames asserted, and no establishment of any ongoing and continuing disruption to the Community which constitutes irreparable harm.
Defendant to give notice.