Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
City Response to Flow Control Injunction

City Response to Flow Control Injunction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 462|Likes:
Published by cityhallblog

More info:

Published by: cityhallblog on Dec 21, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/21/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONNATIONAL SOLID WASTESMANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,BLUEBONNET WASTE CONTROL,INC., IESI TX CORPORATION,REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES OFTEXAS, LTD, ALLIED WASTE SYSTEM,INC., CAMELOT LANDFILL TX, LP,WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS,INC., WM RECYCLE AMERICA, LLC,AND BUSINESSES AGAINST FLOWCONTROL
,Plaintiffs,v.
THE CITY OF DALLAS, MIKERAWLINGS, PAULINE MEDRANO,TENNELL ATKINS, DWAINECARAWAY, MONICA ALONZO,CAROLYN DAVIS, JERRY ALLEN,LINDA KOOP, AND ANGELA HUNT,
 Defendants.CIVIL ACTION NO.3:11-CV-03200-O
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATIONFOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 3:11-cv-03200-O Document 16 Filed 12/20/11 Page 1 of 33 PageID 278
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................2
 
A.
 
The History And Future Of The City’s Waste Management .......................2
 
B.
 
The Franchise Ordinances Granted By The City In 2007............................4
 
C.
 
The Flow Control Ordinance .......................................................................5
 
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................7
 
I.
 
Plaintiffs’ Application Should Be Denied Because Plaintiffs Have NoChance Of Prevailing On The Merits ......................................................................8
 
A.
 
Because The Ordinance Cannot Possibly “Impair” A Right ThatDoes Not Exist In The Contract, Plaintiffs’ Claim Under TheContract Clause Fails ...................................................................................8
 
B.
 
The Ordinance Does Not Violate The Texas Constitution’s “DueCourse Of Law” Provision Because The Ordinance Is AReasonable And Legitimate Exercise Of The City’s Police Power ...........13
 
C.
 
The Ordinance Is A Proper Exercise Of The City’s Police Power, Not Any Kind Of Forbidden Tax ...............................................................14
 
D.
 
Because The Ordinance Does Not Regulate Recycling—But
 Does
 Regulate Exactly What The City Is Authorized To Regulate Under State Law—Plaintiffs’ Claim Under The Sherman Act Fails ....................16
 
E.
 
Plaintiffs Are Incorrect That There Is Any Conflict, Much Less ADirect Conflict, Between State Law And The Ordinance ..........................17
 
F.
 
An Ordinary Delegation Asking An Expert Administrator ToDefine A Narrow Term In A Complex Statute Is A Wholly
 Proper 
 Delegation As A Matter Of Law ................................................................19
 
G.
 
The Ordinance’s Use Of Intelligible Language—As Further Clarified By Agency Directive—Is Not At All Vague As AppliedHere ............................................................................................................20
 
H.
 
The City Charter Did Not Require Notice Or Hearings BeforeAdopting This Policy—But Notice And Hearings Were ProvidedAnyway ......................................................................................................22
 
Case 3:11-cv-03200-O Document 16 Filed 12/20/11 Page 2 of 33 PageID 279
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued)Page
iiII.
 
Because Plaintiffs’ Purely Economic Harm Is Readily Quantifiable, ThereIs No Threat Of Any Irreparable Injury, Much Less A Substantial One ...............22
 
III.
 
Because The City’s Anticipated Injury Trumps Plaintiffs’ PurportedHarm, The Balance Of Interests Tips Sharply In The City’s Favor ......................24
 
IV.
 
The Public Interest Is Already Reflected By An Ordinance Enacted ByThe Entity Tasked With Protecting The Public—Enjoining ThatEnactment To Further Plaintiffs’ Narrow Self-Interest Will Not Serve ThePublic Interest ........................................................................................................25
 
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25
 
Case 3:11-cv-03200-O Document 16 Filed 12/20/11 Page 3 of 33 PageID 280

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->