Black Gold Oilfield Services, LLC v. City of Williston

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court treated Black Gold OilField Services, LLC’s appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction as a petition for supervisory jurisdiction because the district court’s order lacked a required Rule 54(b) certification. The Court denied supervisory relief, holding that Black Gold had not shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction against the City of Williston’s legislative decision not to extend its temporary workforce housing permit. The opinion discusses the adequacy of statutory review, limits on injunctive relief against public entities, and alleged commissioner bias under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-22.

Holdings

1. Although the order denying preliminary injunctive relief was not reviewable as an ordinary appeal because it lacked Rule 54(b) certification, the Supreme Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction because the request for interim relief affected fundamental interests of the litigants.
2. Black Gold failed to establish a substantial probability of success on its claim that Williston's decision not to extend the special-use permit was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
3. Black Gold failed to establish a substantial probability of success on its due process and conflict-of-interest claims because it presented only conclusory assertions and no evidence showing that Commissioner Cymbaluk had a direct and substantial personal or pecuniary interest in closing the facility.
4. Williston did not exceed its authority or violate its zoning ordinances merely by voting not to extend Black Gold's permit, and Black Gold was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief on that theory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court could review the denial of a preliminary injunction despite the absence of a Rule 54(b) certification.
2. Whether Black Gold established a substantial probability of success on its claim that Williston's decision not to extend the special-use permit was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
3. Whether Black Gold established a substantial probability of success on its due process and conflict-of-interest claims.
4. Whether Williston exceeded its authority or violated its zoning ordinances by refusing to extend Black Gold's special-use permit.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying preliminary injunctive relief.

Disposition

writ_denied