Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Ass'n v. State Water Resources Control Board

*1466 Opinion

The plaintiff Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Association (TKPOA) brought an action against defendants State Water Resources Control Board, State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board—Lahonton Region (Lahonton), and State of California Resources Agency (Resources Agency), 1 seeking various forms of relief based upon its contention that a mitigation fee charged as a condition for obtaining building permits is unlawful. TKPOA unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction which would have precluded the defendants from collecting further mitigation fees and would have prevented them from making expenditures from the fund created by those fees which were previously collected. TKPOA appeals from the denial of its request for a preliminary injunction. We shall affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

In this appeal we do not have before us a fully developed factual record for two reasons. First, this is an appeal from the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy and, except in unusual circumstances, a request for a preliminary injunction would not support a final determination on the merits. (See Camp…

I concur in the result but write separately because I believe it is unnecessary for this court to consider the question whether plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits at trial.

In determining whether to grant or deny a request for a preliminary injunction, the trial court must consider the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and must weigh the interim harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is denied against the interim harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted. (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 287 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 ].) Thus, the respective equities of the parties must be balanced to determine whether, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or should not be restrained from exercising the right it claims. (Ibid.) “When a trial court denies an application for a preliminary injunction, it implicitly determines that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy either or both of the ‘interim harm’ and ‘likelihood of prevailing on the merits’ factors. On appeal, the question becomes whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on both factors.” (Id., at pp. 286-287, italics in original.)…

SPARKS, Acting P.J.

The plaintiff Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Association (TKPOA) brought an action against defendants State Water Resources Control Board, State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Lahonton Region (Lahonton), and State of California Resources Agency (Resources Agency), [1] seeking various forms of relief based upon its contention that a mitigation fee charged as a condition for obtaining building permits is unlawful. TKPOA unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction which would have precluded the defendants from collecting further mitigation fees and would have prevented them from making expenditures from the fund created by those fees which were previously collected. TKPOA appeals from the denial of its request for a preliminary injunction. We shall affirm.

In this appeal we do not have before us a fully developed factual record for two reasons. First, this is an appeal from the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction. (1) A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy and, except in unusual circumstances, a request for a preliminary injunction would not support a final determination on the merits. (See Camp v. Board of…