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 or section
Like this
2Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Permanent Injunction

Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Permanent Injunction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 93|Likes:
Published by cityhallblog

More info:

Published by: cityhallblog on Apr 24, 2012
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

10/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONNATIONAL SOLID WASTES §MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,BLUEBONNET WASTE CONTROL, INC.,IESI TX CORPORATION, REPUBLICWASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS, LTD,ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.,CAMELOT LANDFILL TX, LP, WASTEMANAGEMENT OF TEXAS, INC., WMRECYCLE AMERICA, LLC, ANDBUSINESSES 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
PLAINTIFFS’
 
BRIEF
 
IN
 
SUPPORT
 
OF
 
PERMANENT
 
INJUNCTION
Case 3:11-cv-03200-O Document 68 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 57 PageID 1407
 
 
i
 
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
 
Table of Authorities..................................................................................................................iii
 
I. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
 
II. Arguments and Authorities..............................................................................................3
 
A.
 
The Ordinance is unconstitutional and illegal................................................................3
 
1.
 
The Ordinance unconstitutionally impairs Plaintiffs’ contract rights......................3
 
a.
 
The record establishes that the Ordinance substantially impairsFranchisee contract rights...........................................................................................3
 
b.
 
As the Court has recognized and concluded under a hard look, therecord establishes that there is no legitimate justification for impairingthe Franchisees’ contract rights..................................................................................5
 
c.
 
As the Court has recognized and concluded, the record does notestablish that the Ordinance is reasonable and necessary to achieve eventhe pretextual purposes advanced by the City........................................................6
 
d.
 
The record for determining if a permanent injunction should be issuedis identical to the record developed for the preliminary injunctiondecision..........................................................................................................................7
 
2.
 
Because the Ordinance alters vested rights to financially benefit the City, itviolates the due course of law clause of the Texas Constitution...............................8
 
3.
 
The Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague under the federal Due ProcessClause and violates the Texas Due Course of Law Clause by granting theDirector “unbridled discretion” in its enforcement..................................................14
 
a.
 
The federal void-for-vagueness doctrine and the Texas “unbridleddiscretion” doctrine invalidate penal laws that can be enforcedarbitrarily and discriminatorily...............................................................................14
 
b.
 
The Ordinance neither defines “solely recyclable material,”“processing,” “generated,” or “found” nor limits the Director’sauthority to define those phrases and words.........................................................16
 
c.
 
The absence of explicit standards for understanding the wording of theOrdinance and the Director’s disregard of that wording has already ledto arbitrary and discriminatory application...........................................................18
 
Case 3:11-cv-03200-O Document 68 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 57 PageID 1408
 
 
ii
 
4.
 
The Ordinance is preempted because it criminalizes the recycling ofmaterials and loads that are recyclable under state law..........................................26
 
a.
 
State law prefers recycling over landfilling, defines what is recyclable,and prevents cities from treating recyclable material as solid waste.................26
 
b.
 
The Ordinance conflicts with state law by requiring materials and loadsthat are recyclable under state law to be landfilled..............................................29
 
5.
 
The Ordinance violates the City Charter because it was passed withoutproviding Franchisees notice and a hearing..............................................................37
 
B.
 
A permanent injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury..........................41
 
C.
 
A permanent injunction will prevent injury to Plaintiffs that outweighs anydamage to the City............................................................................................................43
 
D.
 
A permanent injunction will not disserve the public interest....................................44
 
III. Conclusion........................................................................................................................46
 
Case 3:11-cv-03200-O Document 68 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 57 PageID 1409

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->