Judge Moon's Denial of Preliminary Injunction in Route 29 Lawsuit

Several months ago, business owners on Route 29 filed a lawsuit against federal and state transportation officials challenging the plan to build a grade separated interchange at Route 29 and Rio Road.  The plaintiffs claimed that defendants improperly segmented a single construction project into three individual projects in order to avoid the requirements of certain federal environmental regulations. After holding an evidentiary hearing on June 1, Judge Moon denied plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction.  The ruling was based on a finding that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim and a balancing of the equities.

Judge Moon began his opinion with the observation that "[t]he question of how to best address congestion on Route 29 in the Charlottesville and Albemarle County areas has long been a source of contention in the area"--quite an understatement!  Traffic on Route 29 has been a hot topic of debate since a western bypass was first proposed 36 years ago in 1979.

Judge Moon's opinion is available here.  Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit shortly after Judge Moon denied the preliminary injunction, and construction has been progressing since then.

Judge Moon and Civil Rights Lawsuits Against Bedford County Public Schools

Judge Moon has ruled on two cases in the past month involving constitutional civil rights issues and public schools.

In L.E.A. v. Bedford County School Board, Judge Moon denied a preliminary injunction prohibiting the School Board from closing Body Camp Elementary School pursuant to its redistricting plan.  Plaintiffs argued that the decision to close Body Camp -- which has a higher percentage of African American students than other elementary schools that were not closed -- violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Judge Moon, however, denied the requested preliminary injunction after determining that plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.  The Court pointed to evidence

"that the School Board closed Body Camp because the school's long-term maintenance needs were substantially greater than those at Moneta Elementary School [the other school under consideration for closing], which is supported by the findings in [an independent consultant's] review.  Moreover, the circumstances surrounding the School Board's decision do not necessarily indicate an intent to discriminate against minority students."

In R.M.B. v. Bedford County School Board, Judge Moon considered another civil rights action brought by a student claiming that his 364-day suspension from Bedford Middle School violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The student was suspended for possession of marijuana after the assistant principal found "crumpled leaves" and a lighter in his backpack after hearing rumors that the student was bragging about possessing marijuana.  A sheriff's deputy and school resource officer field tested the leaves twice and the results were negative for marijuana.  Plaintiff claims that he and his parents were not told about the negative test results at the suspension hearing, and only learned about them when the criminal charges were dismissed.  Judge Moon denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the student's civil rights case and is allowing the case against some of the individual defendants to proceed to discovery, although the claims against the School Board were dismissed.

I should disclose that my father is a member of the Bedford County School Board and that many years ago, prior to law school and before the age of zero tolerance policies, I was a teacher at Bedford Middle School.

Defendant Who Defeated Preliminary Injunction And Obtained Dismissal For Failure To Prosecute Is Not A "Prevailing Party" In Patent Case

The "prevailing party" in a patent case is entitled to attorney fees from the losing side under 35 U.S.C. 285.  However what constitutes a "prevailing party" sometimes can be difficult to determine.  Judge Moon recently held that a defendant who defeated a motion for preliminary injunction and obtained a dismissal of all claims for failure to prosecute was not a "prevailing party" despite the defendant's success.  The lawsuit, filed in the Charlottesville Division of the Western District of Virginia, involved patent infringement of a pocketed bra design.  The court's rational for denying the motion for fees was based upon existing precedent regarding similar circumstances.  A plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction is not a "prevailing party" because preliminary injunction proceedings are a necessarily abbreviated inquiry into the merits of a case.  Therefore, the court concluded that if a plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction is not a "prevailing party" then it logically follows that a defendant who defeats a preliminary injunction is similarly not a "prevailing party."  Also, the court's subsequent dismissal, without prejudice, of plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute was not an adjudication on the merits and therefore did not confer "prevailing party" status.  The case is styled Robinson v. Bartlow, No. 3:12cv024 (W.D.Va. 2014).