reviewed the submissions of the parties and the relevant law, the court DENIESPlaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
BACKGROUND & FINDINGS OF FACTA.
Over a period of six meetings, between June and October 2010, Defendant City of Seattle (“the City”) heard testimony from residents who were frustrated by the delivery of unwanted yellow pages directories to their homes. (Rasmussen Decl. (Dkt. # 30) ¶ 4.)Residents complained that these unwanted deliveries violated their right to privacy andpointlessly generated large amounts of waste. (
O’Brien Decl. (Dkt. # 32)Ex. 2 (attaching copies of complaints emailed to the City).)In October 2010, the City enacted Ordinance 123427, which bans the distributionof “yellow pages phone books” in Seattle unless telephone phone book publishers meetcertain conditions. First, phone book publishers must “obtain an annual yellow pagesphone book distributor license,” “separate from and in addition to . . . the business licenserequired pursuant to [SMC] chapter 5.55.” SMC 6.225.030.
Second, publishers mustpay the City fourteen cents “for each yellow pages book distributed within the City.”
The parties submitted substantial written testimony in the form of declarations, but alsorequested oral argument. The court finds that the facts material to its resolution of this motionare undisputed, and therefore a hearing is unnecessary. It is within the court’s discretion to denya motion for a preliminary injunction without a hearing when there are no relevant facts indispute.
See Anderson v. Jackson
, 556 F.3d 351, 361 (5th Cir. 2009);
Nat’l Propane Gas Ass’nv. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.
, 534 F. Supp. 2d 16, 19 (D.D.C. 2008);
Rottman v. Penn. Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, Inc.
, 349 F. Supp. 2d 922, 928 (W.D. Pa. 2004).
Case 2:10-cv-01857-JLR Document 66 Filed 05/08/11 Page 2 of 26