ENFORCE34652 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As a second matter, if the Plaintiffs aze granted the temporary relief they seek in the form of a delay in the administrative process, they may well do themselves harm: there is a possibility that at the Board hearing on April Z~, Z001, the Boazd will find that Basin caused damage to the Plaintiffs' property, and to delay such a finding may result in further damage to Plaintiffs ranch and house. A. The Plaintiffs Do Not Have a Substantial Likelihood of Success On the Merits of Their Complaint for Judicial Review, and Are Therefore not Entitled to Temporary Relief First, as azgued above, this court does not have jurisdiction to review anon-final agency order. For that reason alone, Plaintiffs cannot show a "substantial likelihood" that they will prevail in this case. The Court should dismiss this case for [ack of jurisdiction, and the Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Relief should be denied. If the Court determines that it does have jurisdiction over this matter, however, it should still deny the Application for Temporazy Relief because the Plaintiffs do not have a "substantial likelihood" of prevailing on the merits ofthisjudicial review case. In the Complaint for Judicial Review, the Plaintiffs assert, in short, that the Boazd acted outside its jurisdiction when it questioned whether the Division had the authority under the statute to vacate the NOV w;thour prejudice subsequent t~ Rasin'~ request fnr a heazing. The Plaintiffs assert, without any legal support, that the "DMG has the inherent and starutorily- implied authority to vacate any notice of violation that the agency issues, without consulting with or obtaining the prior approval of the Boazd." Complaint for Judicial Review, ¶ 35. Because the Boazd's action was one in which it sought to clarify, from a procedural standpoint, where the Division's authority ended and the Boazd's authority began as defined in the statute, the