Log in

Developer's restraining order request denied

A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge has denied the request by N-Shea Group development for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the Town of Fountain Hills related to the Park Place Phase II and Phase III development.

In his ruling issued on June 24, Judge Scott McCoy stated the plaintiff simply did not make their case for the injunction.

“Plaintiffs must show “either…probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or…the presence of serious questions and [that] the balance of hardships tip[s] sharply in favor of the moving party.” Id. (quoting Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58, 62, 804 P.2d 787, 791 (App. 1990).

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor

Developer's restraining order request denied

Posted

A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge has denied the request by N-Shea Group development for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the Town of Fountain Hills related to the Park Place Phase II and Phase III development.

In his ruling issued on June 24, Judge Scott McCoy stated the plaintiff simply did not make their case for the injunction.

“Plaintiffs must show “either…probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or…the presence of serious questions and [that] the balance of hardships tip[s] sharply in favor of the moving party.” Id. (quoting Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58, 62, 804 P.2d 787, 791 (App. 1990).

“Plaintiffs have not made the required showing. The record at this point is relatively limited, and the Court assesses that Plaintiffs have not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits,” McCoy said in his ruling. “Both parties’ views of the events are equally plausible. Plaintiffs contend that not being permitted to finish the project will cause irreparable harm to their reputation and goodwill, but on this record the Court is not persuaded.

“The Court also perceives limited hardship to Plaintiffs in delaying review of pending permit applications until the preliminary injunction hearing.”

The Court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing in the case for Wednesday, July 27.

Share with others


Have an opinion on this story? Click here to send a letter to our editors.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here