You are on page 1of 3

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 May 14 12:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP2601732

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS


) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF HORRY ) NO.: 2019-CP-26-01732

City of Myrtle Beach, )


) HORRY COUNTY’S
Plaintiff, ) MOTION FOR
) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
vs. )
)
Horry County, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________ )

Horry County (“County”) respectfully moves, pursuant to Rule 65, SCRCP, for a

preliminary injunction enjoining the City of Myrtle Beach (“City”) from collecting or

enforcing any tax or fee imposed in the City’s newly enacted Ordinances 2019-22 and

2019-23.

A preliminary injunction requires a party to show three elements: “(1) it would

suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (2) it will likely succeed on

the merits of the litigation; and (3) there is an inadequate remedy at law.” Scratch

Golf Co. v. Dunes W. Residential Golf Properties, Inc., 361 S.C. 117, 121, 603 S.E.2d

905, 908 (2004).

Here, the County can show all three. The County is likely to succeed on the

merits because it validly extended its Hospitality Fee (the center of this dispute).

Contrary to the City’s argument, the County did not need, either by terms of the

ordinance that adopted the Hospitality Fee or state law, the City’s consent for the

County to extend the period for which that fee would be collected.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 May 14 12:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP2601732
The County will face an irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy

at law if the injunction is not granted. If the City is allowed to collect its new taxes,

taxpayers will be required to pay more in local accommodations or hospitality taxes

than permitted under state law, pursuant to S.C. Code §§ 6-1-520(A) and 6-1-720(A).

This will create significant confusion, uncertainty with respect to whether the County

will be able maintain its budgeted expenses, and public distrust as well as more

litigation, all of which will be virtually impossible to undo later on.

This motion is based on the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the South

Carolina Constitution, the South Carolina Code, applicable case law, the attached

memorandum of law and exhibits, and any other materials that may be submitted to

the Court.

In accordance with Rule 11, SCRCP, the County’s counsel certify that

consultation would serve no useful purpose.

Respectfully submitted:

Burr & Forman LLP

s/Henrietta U. Golding
Henrietta U. Golding, S.C. Bar # 2173
2411 N. Oak Street, Suite 206 (29577)
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
Ph: (843) 444-1107
Fax: (843) 443-9137
Email: hgolding@burr.com

2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 May 14 12:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP2601732
Adam R. Artigliere, S.C. Bar #75328
Poinsett Plaza
104 South Main Street
Suite 700
Greenville, SC 29601
Ph: (864) 271-4940
Fax: (864) 271-4015
Email: aartigliere@burr.com

Wm. Grayson Lambert, S.C. Bar #101282


Post Office Box 11390
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Ph: (803) 799-9800
Fax: (803) 753-3278
Email: glambert@burr.com

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina Attorneys for Defendant


Dated: May 14, 2019
1970461v2