Blakelick Properties, LLC v. The Village of Glen Ellyn

Summary

The court granted Blakelick Properties, LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the Village of Glen Ellyn’s short-term rental ban, limited to enforcement against Blakelick. The court concluded that Blakelick was likely to succeed on its regulatory takings claim, would suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The court waived the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) bond requirement and denied Blakelick’s subsequent motion for a second temporary restraining order as moot.

Holdings

1. Blakelick demonstrated a likelihood of success on at least its regulatory-takings claim because it plausibly alleged that the ordinance would eliminate the economically feasible use of the property for its intended short-term-rental purpose and interfere with its investment-backed expectations.
2. Blakelick showed likely irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law because enforcement could make its rental business infeasible, cause loss of the business and online-platform status, and create losses that would be difficult to calculate.
3. The balance of equities favored Blakelick, and the public interest would not be harmed by pausing enforcement of the ordinance against Blakelick while the litigation proceeded.
4. The preliminary injunction could not extend to nonparties because complete relief for Blakelick did not require an injunction protecting other property owners.
5. The court waived the Rule 65(c) bond requirement because Glen Ellyn would not incur damages from the injunction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Blakelick showed a sufficient likelihood of success on its regulatory-takings claim to support preliminary injunctive relief.
2. Whether enforcement of the short-term-rental ban would cause irreparable harm for which money damages were inadequate.
3. Whether the balance of equities and public interest favored enjoining enforcement against Blakelick.
4. Whether the injunction could extend to nonparty property owners.
5. Whether the court should waive the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) bond requirement.
6. Whether Blakelick's second motion for a temporary restraining order was moot.

Disposition

other