SOPHIA GERMANIDES DRYER,

*IN THEet al.,*CIRCUIT COURTPlaintiffs*FOR v.*BALTIMORE COUNTY

BOARD OF EDUCATION OFBALTIMORE COUNTY*

Case No.: 03-C-09-004611Defendant*************

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

This matter came before the Court on May 21, 2009 on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, arising out of a dispute between Plaintiffs, Sophia GermanidesDryer, Kurt and Cynthia Polins, Theodore and Christie Root, and Henry and Karen Vailand Defendant, the Board of Education of Baltimore County. The Court holds thatPlaintiffs failed to establish that the balance of hardship weighs in their favor.

I. Statement of Facts

In March 2008, in response to overcrowding in Towson area elementary schools,Defendant proposed building an addition to the Ridge Ruxton School, located at 6916 North Charles Street. Parents of children attending the Ridge Ruxton School objected tothe proposal, and Defendant subsequently withdrew the plan in April 2008.

On May 6,2008, Defendant adopted a proposal to build West Towson Elementary School on thegrounds of the Ridge Ruxton School, as opposed to building an addition to the RidgeRuxton School. The project involves the construction of a three-story building, which isdesigned to accommodate four hundred and fifty-one students. The school will allegedly be situated within one hundred feet of the Plaintiffs’ residences.

The Ridge Ruxton School currently serves special education students.

On April 23, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment,Injunctive Relief, and/or in the Alternative, Writ of Mandamus. Plaintiffs allege thatDefendant failed to comply with policies, rules, and statutes in adopting the plan for WestTowson Elementary School. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that the construction of the proposed school will create a public nuisance and result in trespass. Additionally, the proposed school will result in a diminution in value of Plaintiffs’ residences.

Plaintiffsassert that, if Defendant had complied with applicable law, the proposal would have beendenied or approved only following substantial modification and limitations to the proposed construction. As such, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendantfailed to comply with numerous policies, rules, and statutes, and a declaratory judgmentthat Defendant and the Superintendent must comply with the law in adopting the proposalfor the new elementary school. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction precluding Defendantfrom proceeding with the construction process, and a writ of mandamus orderingDefendant to comply with the applicable law and compelling Defendant to cease anddesist from proceeding with the construction.On April 27, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,which was denied on April 28, 2009. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctionand a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction on April 24, 2009.On May 6, 2009, Defendant filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On May 19, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in Support of Motionfor Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiffs also argue the proposed school will contribute to environmental degradation.

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant from all actionsrelated to the construction of West Towson Elementary School. The Court considers four factors in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction:1) the ‘balance of convenience’ determined by whether greater injury would bedone to the defendant by granting the injunction than would result by its refusal;2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction isgranted;3) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and4) the public interest.

Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that all four factors weigh in Plaintiffs’ favor,and Plaintiffs’ failure to do so precludes the entry of a preliminary injunction.

If thefacts alleged in a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, or established during anevidentiary hearing, are not “‘full and sufficiently definite and clear, in support of theright asserted, and that such right has been violated,’ the court will not order preliminaryrelief.”

Lerner v. Lerner

, the Court of Appeals of Maryland elucidated the standardapplicable to preliminary injunction proceedings.

The Court clarified that irreparableharm must be evaluated pursuant to the “balance of hardship test.”

The Court reliedsignificantly upon the opinion in

Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Manufacturing Co., Inc.

, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that prior to

Schade, et al. v. Maryland State Board of Elections

, 401 Md. 1, 36 (2007). For the sake of clarity, theCourt has presented the factors in a modified order.

Id.

State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene v. Baltimore County

, 281 Md. 548, 554 (1977).

Lerner v. Lerner

, 306 Md. 771, 783 (1986).

Id.

at 784 quoting

Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Manufacturing Co.

, 550 F.2d 189, 195 (4

Cir.1977)) (“Where the questions presented by an application for an interlocutory injunction are grave, and theinjury to the moving party will be certain and irreparable, if the application be denied and the final decree be in his favor, while if the injunction be granted[,] the injury to the opposing party, even if the final decree be in his favor, will be inconsiderable, or may be adequately indemnified by a bond, the injunction usuallywill be granted.”).